Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Personal Social Services

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has undertaken on the relationship between the national health service and personal social services at the local level.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Considerable and continuing.

Mr. Gunnell: The Minister has not told us very much. Has he studied the Health Service Commissioner's report on the long-term care that Leeds health authority has failed to provide? Is he aware that a recent meeting of the Leeds community health council reported four similar cases and that other CHCs around the country were getting in touch with Leeds about similar cases? Does that not demonstrate a failure to provide long-term care? Is that not why, despite the Government's stated objective of looking after carers, many carers have to finance long-term respite care out of their own pockets—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman might take a leaf out of the Minister's book.

Mr. Bowis: The quick answer is no, but I shall expand a little. I have seen the report. I am pleased to know that Leeds health authority has accepted it and is putting right the individual case. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the case predates community care. It confirms the Department of Health guidelines and underlines why the discharge agreement was one of the conditions for the special transitional grant.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that, at least in Kent, the relationship between the national health service and social services has been greatly improved by the introduction of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1989? Does he also accept that further improvements could be made if a small handful of national health service patients who are also clients of the social services were allowed direct control over that part of their budget which allows for domiciliary care?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is persistent, persuasive and eloquent in making his cause. As he knows, I have discussed the matter with him. Once the community care system has bedded down for a year, we shall be happy to look further at his ideas.

Mr. John Evans: Does the Minister agree that one of the most important social services is that provided by school nurses? Is he aware that St. Helens and Knowsley health authority is proposing to cut by half the number of school nurses in St. Helens and Knowsley? Will he join me in condemning an action that will be detrimental to the health and welfare of children in St. Helens and Knowsley?

Mr. Bowis: It is not for me to second-guess the provision of services in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That is a matter for the local health authority, the local authority and the local education authority. I am sure that he is putting his case to them so that school children can benefit from all the resources available to meet the needs assessed by those areas.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is increasing concern about this subject and increasing evidence that many people requiring long-stay hospital care are not getting it under the national health service but are being directed to the private sector—either residential homes or private nursing homes—where they or their families are having to pay a heavy price for a service that should be free under the national health service?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is knowledgeable about these matters. He is, of course, referring to the Leeds judgment, which underlines the Department of Health guidance that it is for the national health service to provide or to purchase long-term care for those who need it on grounds of ill health. The guidance says that no patient in such circumstances should be required to go into a home where there is a charge. As for people who need social care, rather than health care, for many years the principle has been that the charge should be according to the individual's means.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the Minister listen to his hon. Friends—such as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is absolutely right in saying that the NHS is not discharging its duties to people requiring long-term care? Will the Minister tell me why there is no review system allowing consideration of the cases of people who were placed in long-term residential or nursing home care before the community care changes? Given that people are now paying for care that was formerly freely available under the NHS, has not the ombudsman provided concrete evidence of the way in which the Government are privatising the service?

Mr. Bowis: Continuing, long-stay care is available for those who need it; moreover, provision for elderly patients has reached record levels. Under the present Government, the number of elderly people receiving in-patient treatment has risen by 125 per cent. to 526,000, and the number receiving out-patient care has risen by 89 per cent. to 452,000. That is a record of care for the elderly of which we can be proud, and which the hon. Gentleman can only envy.

Maternity Service, Basildon

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on Basildon's maternity service.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): Basildon has an excellent new maternity unit, whose staff expect to deliver 4,000 babies each year.

Mr. Amess: Does my hon. Friend approve of the centralisation of services in Basildon, with a specialist neonatal care unit on site? Will he issue guidelines on the delivery of babies in water? Finally, does he agree that Basildon's maternity service is now the finest in the world?

Mr. Sackville: There is a feeling among Conservative Members that to be born anywhere in Basildon gives one an unfair advantage in life; but to have the benefit of perhaps the most up-to-date, best-managed and best-equipped maternity unit in the country is an additional advantage for this generation.
I am aware that some clinicians believe that water can have advantages in relaxing mothers in labour, but the decision on actual water births must be left to clinicians, midwives and, of course, the mothers themselves.

Mr. Tony Banks: I believe that, at the last count, the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) had fathered five children. Has he not already put far too much pressure on Basildon's maternity service? Would not the decent thing be for the NHS to offer him a large quantity of bromide—or, if it cannot afford that, perhaps a do-it-yourself vasectomy with two bricks?

Mr. Sackville: I must defend my hon. Friend's right to an equal share of NHS facilities.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: When providing maternity services in Basildon and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, will my hon. Friend ensure that full cognisance is taken of the report of the Select Committee on Health? The role of the midwife should be brought to the fore in the provision of service for mothers-to-be, and the wishes of pregnant women in regard to how they are confined should be respected.

Mr. Sackville: I can reassure my hon. Friend that my noble Friend Baroness Cumberlege, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the other place, has done a great deal of work on the whole question of maternity services. Central to her work is the question of the mother's choice.

Incontinence Services

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to monitor the quality and availability of incontinence services at a local level; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Bowis: Continence services have been designated a priority for national health service planning for the coming year. The Government have funded a national helpline for incontinence sufferers, and have held a national continence week to publicise its availability.

Ms Eagle: Will the Minister admit that, despite the £100,000 that has been spent on publicising continence week, a recent survey showed that nearly 50 per cent. of health authorities find that they must ration the supply of incontinence services to stay within their budgetary limits? Will he take this opportunity to condemn that rationing—which forces sufferers to pay for any extra materials that

they may require—and to assure the House that health authorities will provide sufferers with all the materials that they need to manage their condition?

Mr. Bowis: No, I do not accept the emotive term "rationing". Of course I accept that GPs and incontinence advisers have to assess the individual's needs—every individual is different in this respect—and decide how to meet them. We have heard a very sad and negative story from the Labour party on this issue; the Government are trying to overcome the shame, pain, sorrow and embarrassment of sufferers, whereas the Labour party merely picks holes in what is being done. It is a tremendous battle to try to encourage people who could be cured to come forward. One has only to consider the hon. Lady's health authority to see the tremendous provision that is ready and waiting for sufferers if they would only take the first step.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister accept that hon. Members of all parties are receiving complaints that health authorities are not providing free incontinence pads to residents of residential homes, which is causing great distress? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what guidelines the Government are issuing to health authorities so that the problems can be overcome?

Mr. Bowis: I certainly can. As the hon. Gentleman knows, incontinence pads are available free through the district nursing service. We have issued guidelines under which anyone in a residential care home should be treated in exactly the same way as someone living in his own home and the service should be free.

Personal Social Services

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the introduction of charges for personal social services other than residential care.

Mr. Bowis: Local authorities have had a discretionary power to charge since January 1984. In January this year, the Department issued new guidance about the use of these powers, and since then six representations have been received.

Mr. Ainsworth: Will the Minister confirm or deny that his Department is operating unofficial guidance whereby it is expecting local authorities to make at least 7 per cent. of their standard spending assessment in charges for non-residential care? Does he agree that that is utterly unfair on local authorities in poorer areas and a tax on the elderly and infirm?

Mr. Bowis: The answer is no. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets the 7 per cent. figure from. The charges are long-standing and discretionary and it is entirely up to local authorities whether and to what extent charges are made. The guidelines to which he referred state that charges should be reasonable and should take account of the ability to pay. If he is concerned about the way in which the system is operating in Coventry, I am sure that, as he is a former chairman of finance, he can have a quiet word with his friends who are running the council to ensure that they play the game fairly.

Dame Jill Knight: May I encourage my hon. Friend not to be nervous about making a small charge for these


extremely valuable services provided that people can afford to pay? Is not it the case that at present only £1 in £10 spent on the services is recovered? Bearing in mind the fact that every penny of the recoverable sum will be spent on patients elsewhere, is not such a charge a good idea?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is entirely right. As I said, the charge is discretionary and each council must decide the sort of scheme that it introduces—whether there are flat charges or a scale of charges and whether there are exemptions or discounts. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, however; in fact, 9 per cent. of costs—less than £1 in £10—are recovered through charges, which means that about £69 million is recovered out of a total spend of £815 million. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that modest charges, tailored to the ability to pay, should be made. My hon. Friend is not making me nervous; she encourages me to encourage local authorities to do just that.

Mr. Blunkett: But where does the discretion lie when the Government control the council tax, the distribution of grant and the standard spending assessment and therefore make an assumption of a 7 per cent. charge which, if not levied, would mean that local authorities would have to cut services instead? Is not this very much like the proposed 25 per cent. increase in dental charges—having stung the nation for tax, the Government are now also stinging the nation in charges?

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman might just look at the figures. He might just remember that, in the current year, the Government are spending £6.4 billion on personal social services. That is a measure of support through the social services to the people of the country. It is entirely at the discretion of local authorities whether and how they introduce charges. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for real discretion that his party could use in local government, may I suggest that he considers the cost of services? Clearly, charges must be related to cost. If efficiency savings are made in the provision of services, the costs are lower. That is why in Conservative-controlled authorities there are lower costs through efficiency savings and why there will probably be lower charges, too.

Mr. Garnier: Will my hon. Friend assure me that those patients who are currently in the Carlton Hayes and the Towers hospitals in Leicestershire, which serve my constituency, will not be moved into the care of the social services department of the county without a proper clinical appraisal of the need for their care?

Mr. Bowis: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is the task of our mental health task force to ensure that such moves are made into adequate residential accommodation, if that is what is needed. I am assured by Leicestershire health authority that the hospitals concerned will not close unless and until that provision is available.

GP Fundholders

Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the average savings made by GP fundholding practices in 1992–93; and if she will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Provisional figures suggest that in 1992–93 fundholders achieved efficiency savings of between 3 and

4 per cent. That means that an extra £30 million is to be re-invested in patient care. It shows what can be achieved when GPs take control of managing resources for their patients.

Mr. Hughes: By being able to cream off national health service funding in that way, are not some GP fundholders giving yet more credence to the fast-track, two-tier health service, while other people are having to wait in long queues for out-patient appointments and are facing hospital closures? Does not the Secretary of State agree that it is time that we got back to a needs-led health service, in which patients come first all the time?

Mrs. Bottomley: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments at all. I am perplexed to hear his remarks because in Doncaster, there is a high standard of care for all patients, whether or not they are with GP fundholders. Almost all out-patients are to be seen in three months by July and no patient will be waiting longer than a year by July, whatever category that patient is in. That is an achievement about which I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity to tell the House. He has fundholders in his constituency, as elsewhere. They are at the leading edge of the reforms and all general practitioners are benefiting from the changes pioneered by the fundholders.

Mr. Congdon: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the significant savings that GP fundholders have made in their drug budgets? Will she consider how such good practice may be extended to all GPs?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. GP fundholders are showing a 4 per cent. advantage over the non-fundholders in curbing the increase in their drug budgets. It is an example of the way in which, when GPs are the gatekeepers of the NHS and have direct control over resources, they steward those resources more carefully and can invest in better patient care for others. We want to extend that system to all GPs at the earliest opportunity.

Ms Primarolo: Is the Secretary of State aware of the survey and report in Doctor magazine showing that, in the current year, GP fundholders will accrue £50 million in profit? Is not it obscene that £50 million should be accruing to fundholders when hospitals are turning patients away and cannot treat them because they are running out of money? Does not that finally prove that fundholding is inefficient, expensive, unfair and wasteful? When will the right hon. Lady act for the patients?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am sure that the hon. Lady appreciates by now that the savings achieved through greater efficiency by GP fundholders are ploughed back into patient care. Fundholders show how we can get better value for the inevitably finite resources invested in the national health service. I commend to the hon. Lady not only Doctor magazine, admirable though it is, but a study of the recent King's Fund report on evaluating the NHS reforms, which states that abolishing fundholding
would probably lead to a substantial exodus from the NHS of fundholders setting up private insurance based HMOs. The Labour party would have finally broken up the NHS, which would be par for the course in stupidity!
I commend those remarks to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she is aware of, and welcomes, the Bromsgrove project in


my constituency, which has been possible because all four fundholding practices in Bromsgrove are fully behind what her Department is doing? Will she commend the scheme and back its aims, and recommend that if it proves successful it should be extended to other parts of the country?

Mrs. Bottomley: The first of April will be a watershed in the establishment of GP fundholding, with about 36 per cent. of the population being covered. The task now, as my hon. Friend has described, is to find out how we can take fundholding forward, extending its benefits to non-fundholding GPs and ensuring that fundholders are able further to influence the way in which resources are allocated. GPs are the advocates on behalf of their patients, and GP fundholding has been one of the most important initiatives of the past five years.

GP Fundholders

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has undertaken into the effect of GP fundholding on equal access to health care; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions she has had with GPs on the impact of fundholding.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Ministers and officials regularly meet the British Medical Association and other organisations to discuss the successes of the national health service reforms, including GP fundholding.

Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that a BMA survey shows that 42 per cent. of acute units have special arrangements for GP fundholders? How does that relate to the question that was asked about equality between GP fundholders and GPs without that facility? Is not there a terrible injustice in the difference between the two categories?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am aware that, despite repeated requests for evidence of a two-tier system, no evidence has been forthcoming from the BMA, the Joint Consultants Committee or the Labour party. I am also aware that the BMA is in favour of continuing to work with the Government on GP fundholding. That will come as a great shock to the Labour party, which is committed to abolishing fundholding.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the fact that all GPs are effectively in the private sector, as self-employed people contracting with the national health service? It is not surprising, therefore, that they want to use the best techniques that they can to achieve efficiency savings on behalf of their patients. Will my right hon. Friend welcome the two new fundholding practices in my constituency, in Esher and Claygate, which are joining the existing fundholding practice in Horsley?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I congratulate and welcome the two fundholding practices in his constituency. He will be interested to know that from 1 April the 20.3 per cent. of the population of the Kingston and Richmond family health services authority—of which his constituency is a part—that is covered by GP fundholders, will increase to 74.5 per cent. The House may

also be interested to know that from 1 April there will be an extra 562 fundholding practices, 850 GP practices within those fundholders, and 2,740 GPs becoming fundholders. More than one third of the population of the country will then be covered by fundholding practices. That fact speaks louder than the weasel words of the Labour party.

Ms Lynne: The Minister has mentioned the BMA report about so-called fast-tracking for GP fundholders' patients. Does not he agree that the report's conclusion is that a two-tier health service has been created? However much he denies it, he cannot get away from that fact. Will he tell us what he intends to do about that problem?

Dr. Mawhinney: I have an advantage over the hon. Lady in that it was to Ministers that the JCC produced its 35 examples of two-tierism last September. We examined every one of those examples and not one was found to be true. What is interesting about the latest BMA survey is that it is framed in such general terms that the BMA itself cannot substantiate the charge of two-tierism.

Mr. Sims: May I encourage my hon. Friend to continue vigorously to rebut allegations of two-tier care? Does he agree that both health authorities and fundholding GPs must work within budgets and although it is perfectly possible that the health authority may have completely allocated its budget while GP fundholders still have funds in hand, the reverse situation could equally arise?

Dr. Mawhinney: As is so often the case, my hon. Friend is precisely right. What is interesting about Labour Members is that they have got themselves caught up in structures when what the national health service is about is patients. The proof of the pudding is the fact that we are treating more patients in this country than ever before. The increase in the number of patients that we are treating is higher than before, the quality of the treatment is higher than before, the convenience of the treatment is better than before and GP fundholders are in the lead in virtually all those areas.

Mr. Bayley: The Minister has been able to provide me with information about the amount of money per patient that is allocated to fundholding doctors, but he says that he does not have information about the amount of money per patient that is allocated for the same services for patients of non-fundholding doctors. As he does not have the figures, how can he say that there is equal access when he cannot say that there is equal money for the two types of patients?

Dr. Mawhinney: The allocation of resources is done on a basis that is not only fair but seen and recognised as fair by everyone except Labour Members.

Derriford Hospital, Plymouth

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to visit Derriford hospital, Plymouth to discuss cardiac surgery.

Mr. Sackville: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no current plans to visit Derriford hospital, but she maintains a close interest in the issue of a possible second cardiac unit for the south-west.

Mr. Streeter: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a growing sense of anticipation in the south-west as we look


forward to Derriford hospital becoming an NHS trust in April, thus going from one degree of excellence to another? Is he aware that he could make our joy complete by confirming at an early stage that Derriford hospital will have its own cardiac surgery unit to service people in Devon and Cornwall? When will that announcement be made?

Mr. Sackville: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistent advocacy of a second cardiac unit. It is common ground between us that it is unsatisfactory for people to travel long distances for heart surgery from the south-west to Oxford, London or, indeed, Bristol. However, he must recognise that a case must be made. It is generally thought that no cardiac surgery unit would be viable without perhaps 750 surgical cases per year split between three consultants. A business case has been made. We hope that it will come to the Department in the next few days, and I hope that there will be an early decision.

Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that Plymouth and the Torbay area have one of the highest rates of cardiac disease in the whole country, yet it is the only area without a dedicated coronary unit? Is he also aware that many hundreds of patients travel each year from Plymouth to London to get their treatment and that that is putting patients' lives at risk?

Mr. Sackville: Yes, I certainly agree that it is unsatisfactory for people to travel that distance. I have said to the hon. Gentleman that as soon as we receive a business case we will deal with it promptly, and I hope that there will be a favourable outcome.

Project 2000

Mr. Health: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the progress in implementing the Project 2000 initiative.

Dr. Mawhinney: The Comptroller and Auditor General reported on the implementation of Project 2000 in December 1992.
The final report from the National Foundation for Educational Research, which was commissioned by the Department to undertake an independent evaluation of the implementation of Project 2000, was published on 15 February.

Mr. Heald: Can my hon. Friend confirm that this important training scheme is being fully and properly funded? Does he agree that the early success of the scheme, coupled with the 50 per cent. increase in real terms in nurses' pay since 1979, shows the commitment of the Government to nursing, not only in North Hertfordshire but in the country at large?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the Government's commitment to that important project. We share that commitment with the nursing profession and, I believe, with others from all parties. Since 1989, the Government have invested £321 million to introduce the reforms.

Mr. George Howarth: Does the Minister accept that the nursing profession will greet the proposals with a great deal of cynicism if the proposals to halve the numbers of highly trained, skilled school nurses in St Helens and Knowsley go ahead? Does that not mean that possible

cures through the school nursing service for the terrible health problems that people in St Helens and Knowsley often experience will simply be cut off?

Dr. Mawhinney: The people of St Helens and Knowsley will want nurses who are trained to the highest possible degree, and that is what they will get with Project 2000.

Cancer Screening

Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioners are achieving either the higher or lower targets for cancer screening in the northern region; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Sackville: Ninety-nine per cent. of general practitioners in the northern region have achieved one of the targets for cervical screening. That is an excellent record.

Mr. Bates: Is not that answer somewhat at odds with the statement made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) when the targets were set that the immunisation and screening targets were so heroic that many doctors would give up even trying? Does not the excellent news about northern region GPs demonstrate that the hon. Gentleman was not criticising the policy, but was severely underestimating the professionalism and abilities of northern region GPs?

Mr. Sackville: I agree with my hon. Friend. Given what has happened since, it is particularly shocking that the Labour spokesman should in effect have exhorted GPs to give up, to screen fewer women and to save fewer lives. That typifies the thoroughly negative attitude that the Labour party maintains towards the NHS.

Mr. McCartney: A rising issue is that of prostate cancer and the Government's failure to provide for screening. Some 41,000 men have died in the past five years from that silent killer; yet the Government refuse to recognise that level of death by introducing a national screening system. If there is a national screening system for cervical cancer—which the Opposition support—for 2,500 deaths per year for women, there should be a national screening system for prostate cancer, from which 10,000 men a year die. When will the Secretary of State act and introduce such a national screening system?

Mr. Sackville: As the hon. Gentleman knows, before we introduced a national scheme for cervical and breast cancer, we had to make sure that we had an efficient and effective method of screening which would not lead to a lot of false diagnoses or to false and unnecessary surgery.
In the case of colorectal, ovarian and prostatic cancer, it may be that in time we shall find a consensus and the possibility of bringing in effective national screening systems. When that happens, we shall undoubtedly save more lives, but it cannot be brought in overnight.

Codes of Conduct and Accountability

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses have been received to consultation on the NHS draft codes of corporate conduct and accountability.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: There has been a universal welcome for the draft national health service codes of conduct and accountability which I issued for consultation on 13 January. Almost 400 NHS trusts, authorities and non-NHS bodies and individuals have commented.

Mr. French: Does my right hon. Friend agree that good practice, as set out in her codes of conduct, is in most cases already the normal practice? Will she join me in condemning the Labour party for picking on a few isolated examples to cast a slur on the NHS generally when most of the NHS staff are dedicated, highly motivated and ethical public servants?

Mrs. Bottomley: Public sector values are very much at the heart of the management and operation of the NHS—[Interruption.]—and that will continue to be the case. Like my hon. Friend, I condemn and deplore the way in which the Opposition take every opportunity to denigrate the commitment of those who have achieved a great improvement in patient care in this country. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if the House would come to order and if conversations were less noisy during Question Time.

Dr. Wright: May I ask the Minister for her reaction to the fact that when I attended a recent meeting of my own NHS trust, at which the trust was adopting the new code of conduct to which she referred, I asked to speak and was told that I could not? Indeed, I was told that I was lucky to be there at all. Does that not show precisely what is wrong with the national health service?

Mrs. Bottomley: There is no doubt that the establishment of the new health authorities and trust boards has made opportunities for consideration of NHS matters far more effective and constructive. At the same time, the spirit of probity and accountablity is fundamental to the health service. The hon. Gentleman will for the first time be able to attend an annual meeting and to receive annual accounts and an annual report. There has been a transformation in the amount of information that is available about hospitals, the way in which they are run and the way in which they are funded.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has always been excellent practice at Hammersmith hospital? The whole of west London welcomes her decision to keep that hospital in full order. Will she be similarly generous with the casualty department at Ealing hospital and confirm that its future is not in doubt?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am pleased that my hon. Friend welcomes yesterday's announcement about the new Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust. It will be one of 143 trusts to be established on 1 April, making 419 in all. Again, that is a major step forward for the national health service. As for the other aspects, my hon. Friend will know that the precise configuration of services across London and more widely continues to be considered. We shall always need to be sure that there are high-quality accident and emergency services and, above all, to continue the great investment in ambulance services.

Mr. Blunkett: Is it not a fact that the Government appoint their own nominees to trusts and then, as they are doing in London, allow those trusts to be subject to the

vagaries of the market? When those trusts close great teaching and specialist hospitals in the capital, the Secretary of State washes her hands of the consequences and says that it is nothing to do with her. Is it not time that this nothing-to-do-with-us Government accepted responsibility for the health care of the British people?

Mrs. Bottomley: It is because we accept that responsibility that we are prepared to face difficult and complex decisions. I note that the hon. Gentleman described yesterday's announcement of the Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust as a fudge. On other occasions when difficult decisions have to be made, he also washes his hands of those decisions, although he himself said that no change was no option in London. We recognise that if we want to increase the quality and quantity of patient treatment—we are treating 1 million more patients than before the reforms, waiting times have fallen from nine to five months and there has been a steady improvement—difficult decisions have to be delivered with care.

Temazepam

Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new proposals she has to review the use of Temazepam.

Dr Mawhinney: In the White Paper, "The Health of the Nation," we drew attention to the need to develop local programmes to review the prescription of all benzodiazepines, including Temazepam, and to replace them as necessary with other methods of treatment. Family health services authorities have been asked to work with general practitioners to agree local targets on the reduction of benzodiazepine prescribing.

Ms Quin: Does the Minister agree that national action—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I can barely hear the hon. Lady from across the Chamber. I seek the co-operation of the House. I do not want to stop conversations, but let them be a little quieter so that I can hear hon. Members who are asking questions. Otherwise, it is a total waste of time.

Ms Quin: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree that national action on reviewing this drug is urgently needed in view of the alarming number of crimes that have been committed by people high on Temazepam taken in combination with alcohol and other substances? Does the Minister also agree with me that action is urgently needed to stop the alarming number of thefts of this drug from chemist shops?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am aware of the problems of theft, particularly in the area that the hon. Lady represents. I know that that has been a matter of particular local concern. I am sure that we both agree that pharmacists need to take adequate precautions to try to ensure that drugs are stored safely on their premises.
The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that copies of the Mental Health Foundation publication entitled "Guidelines for the Prevention of Treatment of Benzodiazepine Dependence" were issued to all family health services authorities just last week.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real problem with Temazepam is not with the drug itself, but with the abuse of the capsule? Would the most sensible


thing to do be not to withdraw the whole drug, but just to withdraw the capsule which is being abused so horrendously?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The capsule form was changed to a gel form in 1989, I believe. That has caused difficulties for those who persist in using the drug illegally. It is a matter which is under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Connarty: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Connarty: Has anyone brought to the attention of the Prime Minister the 71.5 per cent. return in the Electoral Reform Society ballot on water services carried out for Strathclyde? Does he agree with the 1,194,667 people who voted against the Government's proposals for quangoing the water services in Scotland? Does he agree that this is a crushing humiliation, or could it be possible that the Prime Minister will see it as an opportunity to show that we have a listening Government and do the democratic thing and abandon his proposal immediately?

The Prime Minister: Since Strathclyde wilfully misrepresented the Government's proposals, I see nothing surprising in the result. The Opposition have continued to link the proposals with privatisation, even though it is perfectly clear that we are setting up public water authorities. They persist in scaremongering about disconnections, although we have no proposals to legalise disconnecting domestic water supplies for non-payment of bills.
The question that the hon. Gentleman should have asked is how Strathclyde will explain to its council taxpayers the waste of £750,000.

Mr. Brandreth: Will my right hon. Friend consider adding to his list of engagements [Interruption.]—

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Brandreth: Will my right hon. Friend consider adding to his list of engagements a visit to the uniquely beautiful city of Chester, where he will find inward investment at record levels, and unemployment 6 per cent. lower than a year ago and 26 per cent. lower than six years ago? Does he agree that, in terms of inward investment to the European Community, the United Kingdom in general, and the city of Chester in particular, are now leading the way?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly pleased to hear of the particular inward investment to Chester. There has been a dramatic amount of inward investment into every part of the United Kingdom over the last few years—Wales and Scotland have certainly received a great degree of inward investment. That is very largely connected with the

fact that we have a very flexible economy and a very effective business tax system, we do not have too many social on-costs, and investment here is welcome.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister think it right that those who can afford to pay fuel bills in advance can avoid paying the new VAT charges on gas and electricity?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it has long been the case that customers for a wide range of services can pay for them in advance. [Interruption.] There is nothing unusual about that. It has happened before every Budget that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can remember since he entered the House.

Mr. John Smith: The Prime Minister does not even begin to understand the problem here. Does he not understand that it is deeply unfair that those who are better off can avoid a tax obligation which millions of others have to shoulder because they do not have the money to exploit the loophole that the Government have permitted?

The Prime Minister: It is not a loophole, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says; it is a position that has applied for very many years. As far as people who are less well off are concerned, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have provided help for them worth £2.5 billion over three years—more to pensioners, more to disabled people and more to single parents. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention that all those people will get the money before the bills arrive. That is a prepayment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgot to mention.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not understand that in those replies he has revealed the Tory attitude to tax in a nutshell—loopholes for the better off, and everyone else has to pay in full?

The Prime Minister: What has been revealed is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is up to his old tricks yet again, telling other people how to spend their own money. It boils down to the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a meddler in everything—in private sector pay, in company decisions and in how people pay their own bills. What he does not mention is the fact that electricity companies, for example, have announced next year's prices and all of them have frozen the price or cut it. When did that ever happen under Labour Administrations?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday the Department of the Environment issued a section 13 notice, under the Local Government Act 1988, against the Lancashire county council for utterly failing efficiently to run its ground maintenance services under direct labour? Is that not one more reason why the citizens of Lancashire wish the Lancashire county council to be abolished?

The Prime Minister: It is certainly a deeply ineffecient council, but that is something it shares with Sheffield and many other Labour-run authorities.

Mr. Ashdown: Are not the policies of the Government and of the Labour party towards the provision of nursery education for all now revealed to be exactly the same—that it will not happen until resources allow? Bearing in mind that it was the Prime Minister's predecessor, when she was Education Secretary nearly a quarter of a century ago, who


first formulated that policy, will the Prime Minister tell us when he thinks that that promise might be delivered—this year, next year, sometime or never?

The Prime Minister: That was extremely well rehearsed, but, as the hon. Lady mentioned a second ago, if the right hon. Gentleman went to the Isle of Wight he would find no nursery education there, whereas if he went to Tory Westminster he would find universal nursery education.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under every Labour Government since the war, before every Budget there was massive spending in the shops to avoid the tax increases that always followed Labour Chancellors' statements, especially during the period of purchase tax when that tax went up to 33 per cent?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. There has always been prepurchase of goods before Budgets, especially Labour Budgets, for precisely that reason, but the Opposition have been out of government so long that they have lost touch not only with government but with reality.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Prime Minister at all surprised at the way in which the President of the Board of Trade is now constantly being talked up as his successor as leader? Should not the Prime Minister watch his back very carefully when the President of the Board of Trade says that he has no leadership ambition left? If the Prime Minister believes that, he will believe anything.

The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman points out is the enormous wealth of talent behind me supporting me.

Mr. Wilkinson: In view of the latest terrorist outrages at Heathrow airport and, more recently, the shooting down of an Army Lynx helicopter at Crossmaglen, is not my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) right to say that the Downing street declaration has run its course? Is it not time to give primacy to the defeat of IRA terrorism, because political progress depends on progress on the security front?

The Prime Minister: Two things run in parallel: first, the Downing street declaration; and, secondly, the continuing efforts to defeat terrorism and engage in the talks process. Security co-operation has improved and continues to improve. The welcome recent successes on both sides of the border are evidence of the intensive efforts by the security forces in both jurisdictions td combat terrorism. Both Governments are committed to close co-operation, which is currently at an all-time high. I assure my hon. Friend that we propose to build on that security co-operation in both the short and the long term. There should be room nowhere in the United Kingdom for terrorism, and we are determined to maintain our battle against it.

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Easter egg that he is giving to the British people is a tax rise equivalent to two weeks' wages for every wage earner in the country?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have conceded before, it has been necessary to increase taxes. I invite him also to condemn the large and unjustifiable council tax increases imposed by Labour councils.

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people with disabilities make excellent employees? Will he ensure that the public sector plays its full part in employing the disabled and thus leads all other employers by example?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The civil service is steadily increasing the number of registered disabled people whom it employs. I am delighted that, as a proportion of its work force, it now employs slightly more than the percentage of registered disabled people in the work force as a whole. A number of Departments and agencies do significantly better than that. I share my hon. Friend's desire to see progress made, but it is encouraging that the public sector is now doing better than the private sector.

Mr. Radice: Which is more important to the Prime Minister—a blocking minority of 23 on qualified majority votes to the Council of Ministers, or an enlargement of the European Union?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman states a choice which, had he ever negotiated in Europe, he would not have stated in that fashion. He is blind to both the short and long-term consequences of change to the qualified majority vote system. We are determined to negotiate in Brussels, and to fight Britain's corner just as hard as every other nation would fight for itself. We will not be moved by phoney threats to delay enlargement. There is ample time to complete the enlargement process; if there is delay, it will be because certain other member states—two in particular—have taken an inflexible and doctrinaire line. We shall not do what the Labour party do, which is to say yes to everything that comes out of Europe, with no critical examination whatever. The Opposition would sign away our votes, our competitiveness and our money. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is the man who likes to say yes in Europe—Monsieur Oui, the poodle of Brussels.

Inward Investment (Northern Region)

Mr. Bates: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of the social chapter on inward investment in the northern region; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: The northern region has an excellent record for attracting inward investment and


creating jobs. Since 1985 the Northern Development Corporation has secured 36,000 jobs for the region. By piling on costs to business, the social chapter would destroy jobs in the northern region, as it would across the country.

Mr. Bates: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the decision by Black and Decker to close its production plant in Limburg in Germany and move to Spennymoor in county Durham because of the excessive level of non-wage labour costs in Germany? Does that not clearly demonstrate that the best way to keep manufacturing jobs in the north-east is to keep Britain out of the social chapter?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. What is clear when one looks across Europe is that the social on-costs of every country other than the United Kingdom are rendering those countries progressively uncompetitive with Japan, the United States and the Pacific basin. What the social chapter would mean is the loss of jobs in the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the news for the people of Spennymoor. The Durham plant has a very high and very well-deserved reputation for quality. Black and Decker knows that high costs destroy jobs and that, for that reason, Britain is the best place in the European Community in which to do business and in which to invest.

Engagements

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Home Robertson: As the Prime Minister once dismissed Strathclyde as a monstrosity, I welcome his conversion and the fact that the Government have now decided to keep the Strathclyde passenger transport authority so as to safeguard comprehensive concessionary travel for pensioners in Strathclyde. Why are not pensioners in other parts of Scotland being allowed the same safeguards? I appeal to the Prime Minister to consider that point and to ensure that pensioners in all parts of Scotland, including the east, are given equal rights.

The Prime Minister: It is extremely unlikely that the hon. Gentleman would appeal to me in any circumstances. The view of Strathclyde that I hold is unaltered, as I indicated earlier with regard to the referendum, which was an expensive stunt. As to the second point, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard the Prime Minister, in responding to one of my hon. Friends on the question of tax increases, say that we should condemn the council tax increases also. This means that the right hon. Gentleman was admitting that the tax increases, too, should be condemned. Will you, Madam Speaker, ensure that Hansard is not altered?

Madam Speaker: That is an extension of Question Time. We shall not go into that matter now.

Freedom to Roam (Access to Countryside)

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for codification of law to ensure public access to the countryside and to define obligations and responsibilities for the public and landowners alike; and for connected purposes.
I was born the daughter of a ploughman. From the earliest years, my brother and I were taught not only to love our countryside but to respect it. Basic codes of conduct have been ingrained in our minds—codes that are observed by all sensible people. Therefore, I grew up with an instinctive feeling that my country—Scotland—is beautiful, that I and others have freedom to enjoy it, and that the correct pattern of behaviour should automatically accompany that freedom.
It is a view shared by colleagues living elsewhere in the United Kingdom—the Bill applies to all the United Kingdom and is endorsed by all who love the countryside, whether in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, although it is of Scotland that I can speak with some clear knowledge.
The Bill is particularly relevant at this time, because of various factors that are converging.
I refer first to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. The clauses dealing with aggravated trespass—originally clauses 52 and 53, now clauses 58 and 59 as the Bill has emerged from Committee—have been interpreted by many organisations as a threat to the legitimate leisure pursuits followed by about 60 organisations. There is a general perception—I think a wrong one—that these fears are expressed only by those involved in hill walking or mountain climbing, in which I have a particular interest. But the fear is much more widespread.
Leisure pursuits cover a wide range of activities: orienteering, angling, photography, cataloguing of flora and fauna, pony trekking, horse riding, geology and archaeology, to name but a few: there are a host of others. Those involved in all these legitimate pursuits respect the countryside, and have no wish to destroy it or to enter into conflict with landowners.
The threat of criminal trespass could be interpreted under such a new law as denying access to that most precious of any country's assets: its land. The land and the people need an harmonious, not an acrimonious, relationship. The few should not deny the rights of the many.
In Scotland, the possibility of a change from civil to criminal law of trespass is seen a break with existing legislation, which describes criminal trespass as
exceptionally exclusive of civil action",
as defined in the second edition of Professor D.M. Walker's "Delict", resting on the common law of Scotland and the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865.
There is also great concern about proposals to encourage the sale of Forestry Commission lands. The Forestry Commission has developed sensible and welcome rights of access. It has enhanced facilities for leisure pursuits and has helped to develop tourism, in addition to its highly regarded creation of direct and indirect jobs, which are important not least in constituencies such as mine.
On 30 March 1993, the Secretary of State for Scotland announced a forestry review group to consider options for ownership and management of Forestry Commission land. In England, there are about 700,000 acres of Forestry Commission land; in Wales, there are 350,000, and in Scotland, 1,830,000, representing about 10 per cent. of Scotland's land area. Fifty million visitors a year enjoy the freedom to roam in these lands, but, over the past 12 years during which Forestry Commission land has been sold, it appears that access agreements have become largely ignored.
Many new owners believe that private ownership and public access are incompatible. Research undertaken by the Ramblers Association this year showed that only 14 per cent. of new owners observed the commission's freedom-to-roam policy. One hundred and seventy-five councils throughout the United Kingdom have called on the Government not to jeopardise access any further. If the Government really claim to listen to the voice of local democracy, this must surely be a deafening condemnation of present policy.
One of the greatest problems we have faced is the secrecy surrounding the operations of the review group. Certainly, consultations were requested, and many submissions were made, but even now the Scottish Office, which is responsible for Forestry Commission land, is retaining the final document so that it can make its own recommendations in due course—perhaps in a few months' time. Is it therefore any wonder that there is some scepticism about the deliberations of the review group, given the contradictory statements that have emerged?
On 3 April 1992, the Prime Minister said:
There is no intention to privatise the Forestry Commission.
That sentence was later said to have been written in the heat of election battles. This strange situation was exacerbated when the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
Although there would be hurdles to overcome, the key benefits are that it would raise money and get the forestry estate out of public hands.
We know, of course, that a further 100,000 hectares of public land are to be disposed of by the year 2000. That seems to show that there is a clear lack of open debate, a failure to define clear policy and a clear contradiction of the Scottish Office paper of May 1992, which emphasised on page 14 the freedom to roam as part of green rights and responsibilities. Any move to sell further Forestry Commission land and the non-definition of genuine access agreements would be a monumental denial of that freedom to roam.
The continuation—and, indeed, the expansion—of the Forestry Commission is vital both for the industry and for access. It may be useful to remind the House that the percentage of forests that are publicly owned in Canada is 90 per cent., in the United States of America and France it is 28 per cent., and in Germany it is 58 per cent.
I and my party support the continued public ownership of Forestry Commission land in the light of its importance to our economy. Four million visitors to Scotland each year inject £400 million into the Scottish economy.
The third aspect is the continuing investigation by Scottish Natural Heritage into the issue of access. It was recorded in The Scotsman on 10 March that, in a recent letter, the chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage, Sir Magnus Magnusson, apparently warned the Secretary of State for Scotland against aggravated trespass, but, at the


same time, said that it would be difficult to balance all interests. There is a fear that that means that there will be a bias towards landowners.
My fear, and the fear of my colleagues who support the legislation, is that a sensible approach will be lost. The Bill seeks co-operation, not confrontation. I have studied examples in other European nations of the codification of the obligations and responsibilities of landowners and those who seek access. In all those examples, particularly those in Scandinavia, a common-sense code has been established. Everyone knows and respects one another's rights—that is what I want my Bill to achieve.
I am aware that, in my constituency, many landowners have a responsible attitude towards access to land, but many fears are caused by the fact that tracts of our land are being bought by faceless bureaucrats and conglomerates who have no interest in enabling and encouraging access to land. That is particularly important at a time when many people require access to leisure facilities.
People and the land are national partners. Let us prevent separation or divorce, and build a lasting, respectful mutually beneficial relationship.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Robert Hicks, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Paddy Tipping, Mr. A. Cecil Walker, Mr. Andrew Welsh.

FREEDOM TO ROAM (ACCESS TO COUNTRYSIDE)

Mrs. Margaret Ewing accordingly presented a Bill to provide for codification of law to ensure public access to the countryside and to define obligations and responsibilities for the public and landowners alike; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 April 1994, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. I have heard today that my local authority, Labour-controlled Waltham Forest, is about to be investigated for maladministration by the ombudsman. Has a member of the Government made a request to make a statement on that matter?

Madam Speaker: My office has not been informed that the Government are seeking to make a statement on that matter.

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,
That the Coal Industry Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses, Amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 12, Schedule 2, Clauses 13 to 15, Schedule 3, Clauses 16 to 21, Schedule 4, Clause 22, Schedule 5, Clauses 23 to 43, Schedule 6, Clauses 44 to 49, Schedule 7, Clauses 50 to 52, Schedule 8, Clauses 53 to 65, Schedules 9, 10 and 11, Clause 66, New Schedules.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

New clause 1

MINING MUSEUMS

'.—(1) The Big Pit Mining Museum in Wales, the Scottish Mining Museum and the Yorkshire Mining Museum shall each be a "designated mining museum" for the purposes of this section.

(2) The Secretary of State may, by Order made by statutory instrument, designate any other mining museum as a "designated mining museum" for the purposes of this section provided that there shall be only one designated mining museum within each coalfield area.

(3) Each designated mining museum shall have available to it, free of charge, the services of a mines rescue service established under the provisions of section 55 of this Act.

(4) Any historic artefacts found, by any licensee under Part II of this Act, during the course of mining operations shall become the property of the Coal Authority, which shall offer any such artefact to the designated mining museum for the relevant area within one year of its becoming the property of the Authority.

(5) The Authority shall be required to provide or secure the necessary maintenance and other services to enable all designated mining museums to continue in operation, and, in pursuance of the discharge of this duty, may make it a condition of any licence granted under Part H of this Act that the licensee is required to provide maintenance and other necessary services to any mining museum designated under this section.

(6) The Authority shall make it a condition of any licence granted under Part H of this Act that the licensee shall be required to offer any mining equipment or other machinery, tools, artefacts, etc., as they become obsolete, to the designated mining museum for the area in which the mine at which they were used is located.

(7) The Authority may, with the consent of the Treasury, make grants to any designated mining museum.

(8) Any Order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in schedule 2, in page 74, line 18 at end insert—

'MINING MUSEUMS

4A. In preparing restructuring schemes for the transfer of the property, rights and liabilities of the Corporation, the Secretary of State shall take into account the operational requirements of those mining museums, designated under section (Mining museums) of this Act, which include underground areas open to the public.'.

No. 11, in clause 28, page 23, line 47, at end insert—
'(8A) Conditions included in a licence under this Part may provide for the provision of rescue and maintenance services to mining museums designated under section (Mining museums) of this Act.'.

No. 12, in clause 55, page 50, line 26, at end insert
'and which will provide sufficient cover for any mining museums designated under section (Mining museums) of this Act.'.

Mr. Hinchliffe: It shows the impact of Government policy on the coal industry that, in moving the new clause, I am, as a representative of Wakefield, primarily concerned with the future of a museum. My constituency has a proud history of coal that goes back hundreds of years. Vast numbers of people have been employed in the coal industry. Sadly, during the present Government's time in power, all our pits have been wiped out, and we are left simply with a museum. Some 20,000 miners and people with mining-related work have lost their jobs since 1979 in the Wakefield district. Our mining engineering industry is struggling to survive because of the impact of Government policy on the coal industry.
The purpose of new clause 1 is to ensure the continued operation of a number of mining museums, including the Yorkshire mining museum that was established in my constituency at Overton in 1982 on the site of the former Caphouse colliery. Since its opening in 1988, that museum has attracted more than half a million visitors, about half of whom have been children. It receives about 80,000 visitors a year, about 20,000 of whom are in organised school parties. I stress the importance of the museum's work in the education of children and young people from various parts of the country, including many districts where there is no experience of the coal industry.
Fifty people are currently employed at the Yorkshire mining museum, which is obviously a major employer in my constituency. A number of those employees are former miners who have been made redundant. As well as offering—as you are well aware, Madam Speaker, having been to the establishment—underground experience with underground tours and a realistic picture of the working life of miners, the museum has offered a range of exhibitions over a number of years, including exhibitions on mine lighting.
Recently, there was an exhibition on the Bevin boys which was opened by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat). Another exhibition on mining art is currently proposed. You, Madam Speaker, will recall the exhibition on the 1842 legislation that took women and children out of work in the mines.
On a personal note, I was proud to take my two children to look at the exhibition. I am proud of the fact that I come from a mining family of many generations of Yorkshire miners. My great grandfather worked, as a 10-year-old boy, in the pit at Silkstone near Barnsley when the Husker disaster occurred and 28 children died. That disaster led to the 1842 legislation that ended the involvement of children and women in the mines. My great grandfather would have known many of the 28 children who lost their lives in that disaster, which was crucial because it led to an important change in history.
As you, Madam Speaker, will be aware, there are other ancient exhibits at the museum, including a unique picture of the Featherstone Rovers under-17 Rugby League team that won the Yorkshire cup in 1946. That unique picture featured Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse)—one of many reasons for us to ensure the future of the important museum.
I shall describe some of the background to the new clause. The Yorkshire mining museum, the Big Pit museum in south Wales, the Scottish mining museum and

the Chatterley Whitfield mining museum in Stoke-on-Trent were set up in the 1980s to preserve the mining heritage of the nation. The first two mines and the Chatterley Whitfield museum have been the only places where visitors can go underground and experience the reality of coal mining. Last year, the Chatterley Whitfield museum was taken into receivership, and it has subsequently closed.

Ms Joan Walley: Is my hon. Friend aware that Chatterley Whitfield is in receivership and that, at the eleventh hour, we are trying to save the entire national collection? Local contributions have been made to Chatterley Whitfield, underlining how important it is that we should retain the mining museum.

Mr. Hinchliffe: We all support the efforts of my hon. Friend and local people in her constituency to ensure that the collection is retained for public exhibition. Since that museum closed, there are only two mining museums where people can take underground tours and see the background of the mining industry. It is important to ensure that that experience is available to future generations.
We are worried that the Bill will result in the existing museums no longer being able to survive. I want briefly to set out why that is the case, and why new clause 1 is particularly important.

Mr. William O'Brien: Has my hon. Friend considered the significance of the mining museums as tourist attractions? As local authorities, particularly Wakefield and Huddersfield, now have to rely more on tourism, will my hon. Friend dwell on the importance of the mining museums in attracting tourism into areas that are not usually designated as tourist areas?

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend speaks with unique experience, as he was a miner for many years. In Wakefield, we are increasingly looking to tourism to create jobs and increase employment opportunities.
Near the mining museum at Overton is the Yorkshire sculpture park at Bretton, which also offers an important tourist facility and attracts thousands of people from many parts of the country.
Returning to our concern about the future of the Yorkshire mining museum and others, when that museum was established in 1982, the then National Coal Board promised that, although it could not supply cash to the project, it would give all possible help to the setting up and operation of the museum in the form of technical assistance and the provision of equipment and machinery.
The Yorkshire mining museum opened to the public in 1988, with investment from local authorities in West Yorkshire, the European Union, sponsors and various Government bodies totalling some £4.5 million. Since then, it has received help from British Coal for such items as rope testing, testing suspension gear and analysing air samples—important features in offering visitors the experience of a working pit. If the museum has to buy those items and services on the open market, it will have to pay some £100,000 each year—money it simply does not have. The Big Pit mining museum in Wales is in a similar position.
The new clause provides that the coal authority should provide or secure the necessary maintenance and other services to enable the designated mining museums to continue, and that the Secretary of State should take into


account the operational requirements of mining museums with underground areas open to the public in preparing the restructuring schemes for the transfer of the property, rights and liabilities of the corporation.
The Yorkshire mining museum is the museum for the Yorkshire coalfield and has an obligation to collect historical mining items and a representative selection of machinery and equipment used in the coalfield up to and including the present day.
At present, the museum receives from British Coal all items of historical interest found in Yorkshire from deep mining and opencasting, and obsolete machinery as it goes out of use. Those items are supplied to the museum free of charge. The museum estimates that it would cost a further £60,000 a year to acquire such items second-hand from licensed mines. That is also the case for the Big Pit mining museum and the Scottish mining museum, which collect material from their respective areas.
New clause 1 requires that any historical artefacts found during mining operations should pass to the Coal Authority, which will offer them to the designated mining museum for the area, and that licensees of collieries should be required to offer equipment, machinery, tools and other artefacts to the designated mining museum for the area once those items become obsolete.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Although the Rhondda valley has no designated mining museum, it has a heritage park which fulfils exactly the same function as the Big Pit museum, except that it has no underground facility. Might it not be a little restrictive simply to pass all artefacts and historical items to the one designated museum? As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) pointed out, facilities such as the heritage park are extremely important to the development of the local tourist industry.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I would expect the Big Pit mining museum in south Wales to take account of it: it is entirely reasonable. I know of other facilities that might wish to use exhibits that—under the new clause—would be passed to, for instance, the Yorkshire mining museum; I do not think it unreasonable for the various bodies to agree at local level on who can make the most effective use of the exhibits involved.
If the help required in the new clause is not forthcoming, the mining museums will be in grave danger of being unable to fulfil their obligation to collect, preserve and display material that illustrates the development of an exceptionally important aspect of the history of our nation, and of constituencies such as mine.
In view of the heavy financial cost of running a museum with an underground section open to the public, there is clearly a danger that the Yorkshire and Big Pit mining museums will not be able to survive much longer. Without them, there would be nowhere for people to be shown the history of coal mining in the environment in which it was practised, and to appreciate at first hand exactly what working underground was like for coal miners.
The sums involved in securing the future of the three mining museums are minute in comparison with the overall costs of the privatisation of British Coal. If the museums are forced to close, we shall have lost for ever a vital part of our natural heritage, which cannot be restored in the future. I hope that the Minister will listen to those who support the new clause—not just Opposition

Members but members of his own party, including those in the other place who have actively supported the preservation of the Yorkshire and other mining museums. I hope that he will accept the new clause.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I, too, support new clause 1, to which I have attached my name. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has said. Although I have visited neither the Big Pit mining museum in Wales nor the Scottish mining museum, I have visited Caphouse colliery—the site of the Yorkshire mining museum—a couple of times as a tourist, and, on a more serious visit, discussed its future with Dr. Faull.
The museum is a wonderful example of a working colliery, and a very good example of our industrial heritage. It has educational facilities, and—as we have heard—many schools visit the museum and use those facilities. In future, this will be the only way in which they can see how the coal industry has progressed over many years.
I, too, have seen the picture featuring Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am sure that it is one of the museum's prize possessions. I am not sure whether my hon. Friends the Ministers have visited the museum, but I know that our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage has done so, and was extremely impressed by what he saw.
The maintenance of the fabric of the mine itself is essential to its future: clearly, no one can be taken so far underground without the existence of the proper health and safety provisions that would obtain in a normal mine. Those provisions must be closely monitored and checked.
Mining museums have always been recognised as a welcome addition to our industrial heritage, and should be available for young people, not only now but in future. In one respect, I am wholly at odds with the Mines and Collieries Act 1842, which was passed on 10 August and which prohibited females and boys under 10 from working down the mines. I am not suggesting that children should work down the mines, but they should be allowed to visit.
During my most recent visit at the new year, very small children were enthralled at being taken on such a visit. They scrabbled about in the dirt and, although they were tiny, they asked lots of questions. If the museums were to disappear, we shouldhave lost a great part of our industrial heritage which we, especially in the north of England, treasure greatly.
The museum is not resting on its laurels and asking for money. It raises much of its own finance and is very well run. It has a well-managed cafeteria which brings in money. However, the museum will continue to need support, support that I believe the Coal Authority or the Department of National Heritage should be able to give. I look forward to hearing what my Front-Bench colleagues have to say.

4 pm

Mr. Eric Clarke: The Scottish mining museum, which is worth visiting, is in my constituency, based at the old Lady Victoria colliery. It is a living museum, in that it contains exhibits showing life in the village in the 1920s and even some about the old coal owner, Mungo MacKay, who was a rather dominating character. He was also a very fine mining engineer and many of the exhibits are unique. It has one of the largest


steam winders in existence. It wound the hatches and the coal up to the surface in a circular shaft. In other words, this was engineering way ahead of its time.
The same mining engineer and company had the use of arched girders, way before anyone else, and tubular steel props. From an engineering point of view, and in respect of cutting coal, the colliery was ahead of its time. The model village built at Newtongrange is still in existence. After a great deal of renovation, many of the houses have become desirable, and are attracting people to the village.
The museum is part and parcel of our heritage. I worked at the colliery across the road—the Lingerwood colliery—which belonged to the same company. We were far better producers of coal than the Lady Victoria—that is obvious, as I was working there. Seriously, last year the museum had 13,000 visitors, an increase of 20 per cent. on the previous year. Bearing in mind the fact that it opens only between April and September, and the fact that we are hoping for a further 20 per cent. increase this year, it is clear that it is part of the heritage trail in and around the city of Edinburgh.
I am very proud of the people who run the museum, who are bringing in more money all the time. They plead with the Government to accept new clause 1 which I support whole-heartedly. I also congratulate those who tabled it. People who work in such museums argue that they need to be provided with more equipment, and their plea is taken up in the new clause.
Any new mining company that comes across old mining machinery should ask the mining museums whether they would like to inherit it at no cost. Such machinery should be excavated rather than scrapped or melted down, which would be criminal. At the moment, British Coal hands over a considerable amount of surplus machinery. It does not want that to be lost.
The new clause is not asking very much of the Government. It protects our history. I agree with the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) that some of the young children who visit the museums have not even seen a piece of coal and have no idea what one looks like—which includes people in my community. The museums are an important educational facility, which enable children to see for themselves how the wealth of the nation was built and especially to congratulate the men and women who studied hard and put in a lot of effort to ensure that we had the resources to make the engines and other utilities function.
I throw my weight behind the new clause, and I hope that the Government take cognisance of it, because it is an important facet of the Bill. The people in those mining museums are not only paid for but dedicated to managing the resources which are given to them; they, as well as the museums themselves, should be supported.

Mr. John Gunnell: I ought to declare an interest, as I am a trustee of the Yorkshire mining museum. However, it is an unpaid position, since to be a trustee is voluntary. I am a trustee because I have been associated with the museum since it began. The origins of the museum lay in the desire of many local people to see a museum that represented the Yorkshire coalfield area. While I was leader of West Yorkshire metropolitan county council, it considered one or two

mines that it knew were not to continue in existence as mines for much longer. It is on the basis of that research that the mine at Caphouse was selected to be a museum.
As my. hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, it was a long time between the conception of the Yorkshire mining museum in 1982 and its opening to the public in 1988. Part of the reason for that was the long dispute in the coalfields in 1984–85; the completion of mining at Caphouse took some time and the opening of the museum was, therefore, much delayed.
Great support developed for the formation of the museum. Not only West Yorkshire county council, but South Yorkshire county council and British Coal supported it and the area was one of the few in which, during that period, there was co-operation and support between British Coal and the National Union of Mineworkers, because the NUM was anxious to see a museum that represented the coal heritage that it had created in Yorkshire.
The Caphouse museum has fulfilled our expectations and our hopes. It has been superb. You have seen it yourself, Madam Speaker. The Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage has visited the museum and has spoken of its high quality. It has won national awards for the quality of its work, which has been provided with help from the local authorities and the European Community, and we all wish to see it remain in existence.
I recognise that, in debating the new clause, we are not dealing with the mainstream points of the Bill, but we are dealing with an unintended possible effect of the legislation. We must make some provision for the service that the Coal Board is making available to three mining museums. We must ensure that there is help available. When I spoke to the Under-Secretary of State on the subject, he referred me to the Minister for Energy and said that it was a matter which needed to be dealt with on Report.
I shall illustrate British Coal's present important role by reading from a letter written by the director of the mining museum, Dr. Margaret Faull, who has directed the museum from its inception and is responsible for the good things that have been created there. In that letter, which was written to the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage following his visit, Dr. Faun spelt out clearly the provision that British Coal now makes:
At present British Coal supplies the Museum with up-to-date equipment for inclusion in the Museum collections and for display to the public as examples of state of the art mining machinery; we do not pay anything for these items, nor for the cost of transporting what are often very large items to the Museum. British Coal also supplies the Museum with a wide range of services and equipment for use in the running of the Museum, again at no charge. Some of the equipment which has recently been supplied includes fencing, electrical cabling, environmental monitoring and statutory inspections. The services cover a variety of types, including for example, assistance underground when there have been maintenance problems. Throughout the time that the Museum has been open, all design work and costings for new buildings and for major repairs or conversions to existing buildings have been carried out by British Coal free of charge, together with the letting of tenders, overseeing the contracts and authorising payments. We estimate that the amount which we would have to find to pay for all these services and equipment would be in the region of £80,000–£100,000 a year, and we have no moneys in our already tight budgets to cover this amount.
When we were setting up the museum, British Coal said that it could not afford to put any money into it. We accepted that, but the House will realise from the letter that I have quoted that British Coal is none the less at the center


of maintaining the museum. It also has places on the board of trustees, so that its interests can be expressed and taken into account.
If there is no substitute for the provision that British Coal makes, it is highly unlikely that the museum will survive far into the future. Yet, as my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) have already said, it is a vital tourist attraction for Yorkshire. It is well supported by Wakefield metropolitan district council, but I do not believe that the council could bear that burden alone.
I know that certain agreements on safety are likely to be made. When other mines in the area were closed there was a danger of flooding, which could have affected the museum. That has had to be taken into account, and there have had to be safeguards to ensure that the mine can remain open to the public—one cannot put the public at risk. It would all be included on the face of the Bill if we accepted the new clause and the amendments.
The three museums—I know the one in Yorkshire best—are part of our national heritage. We have been forced to witness the rundown of the mining of deep coal, and we think it important to ensure that we do not also lose the heritage that the museums represent and preserve. I urge the Minister to accept that the cost of the amendments to the authority would be minimal in comparison with overall costs, and a vital part of the culture and heritage of Yorkshire and other areas would be preserved.

Mr. Peter Hain: This is the first subject in our proceedings, so is ironic that we are discussing museums, when the Government are doing their level best to consign coal to history. The new clause, which I strongly support, insists on private mine owners and the Coal Authority being obliged to support the museums. Effectively, they piggybacked on British Coal in the past.
Like Wakefield, which has been eloquently described by my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), Big Pit in Blaenafon in south Wales has extensive underground workings and is hugely dependent—it has been for many years—on British Coal. The absence of British Coal has meant the loss of a source of artefacts for display in the mining museum and the loss of a vital source of spare replacement parts for working machinery for the museum, much of whose equipment is now obsolete and unsupported by the original manufacturers. There has also been a loss of the reservoir of technical expertise, particularly on health and safety matters, where British Coal's recommended practices are accepted by the inspectorate as having virtually the force of law.
4.15 pm
Another loss has been that of the repair, maintenance and testing facilities for a whole range of colliery equipment and requirements, such as air sampling, which have been provided free of charge by British Coal in many museums, especially in Yorkshire. Although there has been a small charge at Big Pit in Blaenafon, it has benefited from economies of scale such as shared transport costs with other local collieries.
Our argument is that the museums are effectively supported by local British Coal pits. Without that support, they would be unable to function. The Yorkshire mining museum in Wakefield has estimated that the additional cost

that would fall on it once British Coal has withdrawn from the scene would be some £80,000. Blaenafon tells me, through my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), that that is an underestimate; it has found additional costs of more than £100,000 as all the mines in south Wales, with the exception of Tower, have closed.
Although the Scottish mining museum and museums such as Cefn Coed in the Dulais valley in my constituency and the Rhondda heritage park in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) do not have underground facilities, they still rely on British Coal for the sort of support in other respects that I have described.
It is no good the Government's saying that the burden should fall on local authorities. In many mining communities, the local authorities are hard pressed and operating on the edge of viability. I hope that the Government, who showed a Scrooge-like approach towards accepting any amendments moved by my hon. Friends in Committee—and, undoubtedly, they will be the same later—will at least accept new clause 1. It would be a sad epitaph to the Government's philistinism if not only coal was destroyed but a vital part of our heritage and culture of which we are extremely proud in south Wales.

Mr. Harry Barnes: In addition to mining museums, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that another major part of our heritage is mining records, and another act of vandalism is the way in which mining records have been taken out of the community and deposited centrally? Access to mining records is becoming more difficult.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Mining records have been centralised in Bretby, which is a considerable distance from places such as Merthyr and Neath in south Wales. Another value of the museums, to which my hon. Friend drew attention, is that they are a source of history about the local area. At least they are relatively near the coalfields, in the case of Big Pit in south Wales, and that is another major reason why they should be preserved.

Mr. Derek Enright: I shall talk about the living heritage in connection with new clause 1, which I wholly support. You, Madam Speaker, were not able to select amendment No. 59—I certainly do not question your decision—but it would seem to be the appropriate place in which the Minister could consider, when he eventually adopts new clause 1, some way of rescuing the brass bands and associations that have banded together for sporting purposes, and have been fostered by individual collieries. That is most important.
I raise this matter at the urging of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett), who has the Grimethorpe colliery band in his area. Surely, the Grimethorpe band and the Frickley band are two of the finest brass bands that exist.

Mr. William O'Brien: There is also Sharlston.

Mr. Enright: My hon. Friend reminds me of Sharlston. My hon. Friends and I could go through a catalogue of some of the finest sounds in this country. They have reached a high international standard and it is important that they are not swept away.
If you were to examine my constituency, Madam Speaker, you would see that it is a series of communities.
Those communities were brought there essentially to work at the pit. The communities were fostered in part by the pit in terms of the recreational activity, which was extremely important. One only has to look at the multitude of miners' institutes and at the part that they played in improving a life which was hard. They improved that life with better educational and cultural standards.
We must not throw that away, because the communities have no jobs whatsoever. The result is that we are liable to have young folk hanging around with nothing to do, and the devil does indeed create work for idle hands. However, one can find in the brass bands a combination of young and old folk working together. The bands take them off the streets and give them not only a pastime, but a passion.
I ask the Minister to consider seriously the possible inclusion of brass bands and of sporting clubs that were previously supported by individual collieries. They now have nowhere to go because the corporate purse is dwindling in the private sector. Therefore, the urging of the Government is needed.

Mr. Rogers: I want to speak in particular to amendment No. 11, which deals with the provision of rescue and maintenance services to mining museums. That would probably apply uniquely to south Wales, because the area has become a mining museum. We have one colliery, which is due to close.
However, in my constituency there is a mines rescue service station which is manned by full-time brigadesmen. Those are young men—probably the cream of the mining industry—who have been trained to an extraordinarily high level. They would be, if I may use the expression, the "shock troops" of the rescue service in the event of any disaster or calamity.
There are members of my family in the service in Rhondda, and I know of their extraordinary dedication in achieving high levels of personal fitness, as well as acquiring all the skills that are needed. The proposition that we should go to a part-time force fills me with horror. Regardless of how many collieries will be left, if there is a disaster or a calamity—as the Minister knows—the professionalism required is as high as that required from the police, ambulance and rescue services above the surface.
One could argue that those in the mines rescue service require even more skill because of the extraordinary conditions in which they have to operate. If Tower colliery closes by 1 May 1994—that proposition has been made in some quarters—the only nearby underground shaft facility that would be serviced by that rescue station would be the mining museum at Big Pit.
In south Wales, there are 100 small mines. Many of those are in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Mr. Hain) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and some are in my constituency and throughout the valley communities in south Wales, and they rely on the rescue service.
I know that proposals have been made about the level of service that ought to be maintained and the mechanism under which it would operate. For example, a central service and a service by helicopter that would fly out when emergencies occurred have been proposed. As long as any

people are working underground, the thought of a reduced service fills me with horror. Often in emergencies the time factor is important.
Not so long ago, there were 63 coal mines in my constituency. Now there are none. There is a half one in a way; the Maerdy colliery is worked from the Tower colliery, but both the coal and the men are wound in Tower colliery. However, many of my constituents—I say many, but that is a relative term. I should say that some of my constituents work in the coal mines. To withdraw any rescue services while even one man is still working underground would be a criminal abdication of responsibility by the Government. Whatever expenditure is required and however the service is structured in the future, the Minister should take the responsibility extremely seriously.
I accept that the demand for the service will decrease. Therefore, the Minister must think about what he intends to do with the young dedicated people, the cream of their profession, who have devoted their working life to developing the mines rescue service. The Minister cannot simply wash his hands of such people. They are in an incredibly difficult position. They must stay in employment. Unlike other miners, they are not allowed to apply for voluntary redundancy even though, as miners, they have come from collieries into the central rescue station.
As they are full-time brigadesmen, they live in the station so that they can be on 24-hour call. They have to arrange their holidays to ensure that the maximum required coverage is available if a disaster occurs. These people have given complete dedication.
The brigadesmen live in tied houses. They cannot apply for houses outside the station. British Coal, as currently constituted, will not allow them to live outside the station. So they cannot purchase or rent a house outside. What will happen to their conditions of employment after the reorganisation?

Mr. Paddy Tipping: In view of the dedication of the men, is it not odd that British Coal will not even treat with them about the possible sale of those houses to the men? They want to know what will happen to their homes and property. It is a real shame that British Coal has locked the door and will not talk to them about the possibility of buying the houses that they live in.

Mr. Rogers: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned that point. It is an absolute scandal. I do not understand why the Government behave in that way. Those in the rescue service, of all people, have given loyalty to the industry. I am not surprised that the Government have done what they have. Some years ago, I was the spokesman for the Opposition when we considered the Bill to provide for the contractorisation of the atomic weapons establishments at Aldermaston and elsewhere. The Government sold those houses over the heads of the occupants.
Will the Minister deal with that point when he replies? Does the Coal Board intend to sell the houses over the heads of the people who occupy them? It would be an absolute scandal if that happened. Almost all those young people are under 40 and have young children. They have given up their homes in other areas to live in the rescue station. For their houses to be sold over their heads, as


happened in Aldermaston under the same Government, would be criminal, just as it was in the case of the Atomic Weapons Establishments police.
What guarantee will be given to the young men who work in the mines rescue service? Will they be allowed to remain in their houses for six months, 12 months or some other period? What time period will they be given? I stress that those people have had to uproot themselves from their communities in order to provide this service.
Those young men are the cream of the profession. They have shown dedication, loyalty and, in many instances, bravery of the highest order. They deserve some respect, loyalty and support in return. If the Coal Board is to close these stations these people will have to be treated generously so that they can adjust to the situation outside their current employment. Any action less than that will be a crime committed by the Government.

Mr. William O'Brien: I will dwell briefly on the value of mining museums to the tourist trade throughout the regions, and particularly on their value to the Wakefield and West Yorkshire area. The closure of mines—in my constituency the last pit, Sharlston, closed last July—has signalled the end of mining in the Normanton constituency. At one time, there were 23 pits in the area and now there is none.
The area has a mining background. People will learn of the traditions of the communities and history will be projected into the future through the mining museum situated in the Huddersfield and Wakefield area. Therefore, the proposals in this new clause and the amendments taken with it are significant. They provide some safeguards for traditional inspections, maintenance of underground corridors, maintenance of inspections for safety reasons, and maintenance of winding equipment, cages and other equipment which are necessary if the museum is to continue operating. That is the purpose of the new clause and of the amendments taken with it.
We are asking the Government for assurances that the back-up services that have been provided by British Coal will continue to be provided. Obviously, local authorities will give all the support they can to maintaining the new museum, but their resources are very limited because of Government restrictions on local government expenditure on local government activities. Nevertheless, the involvement of local government in the maintenance of the mining museum is very important.
There are statutory responsibilities also. We will have to rely upon the mining industry—British Coal in particular—to provide the necessary back-up services. I make one plea to Ministers. Mining areas such as mine have a history going back decades—a history of which mining people are proud. Even though we have witnessed disasters in our communities, those disasters are part of the history of our areas. I refer in particular to a recent disaster at Lofthouse colliery in my constituency. Thirteen men perished because of an influx of water into the coal workings, and there is a memorial in the area to them. When people go underground in the mining museum, it helps to explain the situation that developed at Lofthouse colliery and helps the communities to understand what people endured on that occasion. It helps to explain why mining communities are so proud of their attachment to the mine.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I, like my hon. Friend, recall vividly the Lofthouse tragedy. Does he accept that, in a sense, Lofthouse is unique, because the tragedy is commemorated by a memorial above the place where several of the men who were killed remain to this day? That is not the case in many other parts of Yorkshire and other coalfields where there are no memorials to the thousands of people who gave their lives to the British coal industry, which has been wiped out by the present Government. That fact reinforces the need for museums that offer some insight into what people in our area and elsewhere went through.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful for that intervention because it brings out an argument that should have been made earlier—that the mining museum in West Yorkshire is a memorial to many people who worked in the pits and many people who perished in the pits. I believe that the museum is important as a memorial to the people who worked in those pits, and to the people and communities who relied on mining for their livelihood and standard of living.
Therefore, I consider that the new clause and the amendments are important. I appeal to the Minister to take into consideration the importance of maintaining the mining museums, especially the museum in Wakefield, but no less importance should be given to the other museums to which hon. Members have referred. As we need statutory back-up to ensure that those museums continue, it is important that the Minister answers the points that have been made so that we can understand the effects that the Government's proposals in the legislation will have on mining museums.
I said earlier that in the region of Wakefield, Huddersfield and West Yorkshire in general the mining museum is a tourist attraction. Many people visit the museum because it signifies a past industry in the region. The local authorities now need to develop the tourist trade to increase the flow of resources into their districts. It is a new type of local tax, trying to bring in tourists. We need that because the English tourist board is not being financed to the extent that it was a few years ago, so we need to find new attractions. Mining museums are new attractions. The tourist trade in the mining areas is beginning to develop, and the mining museums are a way of attracting tourists to our areas.

Ms Walley: I shall speak briefly in the short time that is available. I want wholeheartedly to support the new clause which has been spoken to so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), and to congratulate all hon. Members who are supporting it today.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will take on board the special lessons that we are now learning in my constituency from the Chatterley Whitfield mining museum. It is important that we should consider what is happening to our coal mining industry. It is ironic, given that we have spoken so much about pit closures, that we should now have to urge the Minister, at the eleventh hour, to prevent coal mining museums from closing.
Chatterley Whitfield is a coal mining museum. It was set up as a trust, and it was successful in so far as it managed to obtain, as we have heard, the whole of the British Coal collection. It was run on a shoestring. It has been successful in that it attracts about 50,000 visitors annually. People can visit the pit buildings and experience


going down a pit. Those who gave their working lives to the industry work as volunteers to give young people a chance to see what a coal mine was like.
Unfortunately, Chatterley Whitfield mining museum has gone into liquidation. This Friday, I shall have a last-minute meeting with the Charity Commission, the city council and others involved to see whether we can save it. I tabled an amendment to the new clause in the hope that Chatterley Whitfield could be included in the list of museums which the House should have an opportunity to keep open.
Three aspects of Chatterley Whitfield museum are important. First, it houses the national collection, which includes a huge number of items. That is in the hands of the liquidators, who are deciding when and how it will be sold. Earlier today, I was speaking to the regional museums office in the west midlands, which does not even have a comprehensive list of the items in the national collection. It is outrageous that it is to be sold because it includes items of national value. The liquidators say that it cannot be separated but must be sold as a job lot. We cannot afford to lose that national collection. It should remain in regional coal mining museums.
The second aspect of the museum concerns its local collection. People are rightly proud of how local communities have built up the coal mining museums. They have donated in good faith items such as George crosses and other items connected with their fathers' and grandfathers' work in the industry. Although some items have been returned to people, a large number have been sold.
Thirdly, the Chatterley Whitfield museum is a local archive which includes details about maps, shafts and how different companies operated, even before nationalisation. The collection has been brought together over the years and reflects our industrial heritage in Stoke-on-Trent.
By the second week of April, all that will be sold off. This is an important debate. I shall fight 100 per cent. to keep the collection at the Chatterley Whitfield museum and, despite all the odds, to find a way to keep the collection together. Many people in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire feel the loss of the mining museum far more than the loss of individual items. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that we keep intact the proud heritage of our mining traditions in my mining museums.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate hon. Members on their ingenuity in having this subject as the first debate. In some respects, it is appropriate that we begin by giving due recognition to the tremendous contribution that the mining industry has made to this country. It is sad, however, that nowadays hon. Members want to speak more about the museums in their constituencies than about the mines. That is regrettable because of the economic and industrial circumstances that confront us.
We discussed this matter briefly in Committee. At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) was ingenious in finding a way to raise the issue. Since then, there has been a comprehensive, all-party approach by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). This afternoon, the importance of the mining industry to so

many communities has been clearly expressed by Members on both sides of the House. It is essential that we secure our heritage for the future by ensuring that mining museums with mining facilities receive appropriate technical assistance.
4.45 pm
As my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Wakefield said, it is important that due recognition be given to the rescue services. If it is wrong to send men down the mines without proper safety equipment, it is even worse to send people with no experience of the industry. The very purpose of the Museums is to give them an understanding of the industry. The last thing that we want is for people to go down in dangerous circumstances.
If we do not preserve the mining museums, all that will be left of the mining industry will be one or two collieries and the unsightly, derelict mine sites that still scar so many mining communities. It is therefore appropriate that, in a debate of this nature, we should draw attention to the great assistance given by British Coal. At a time of limited resources, it has nevertheless backed the development of this "second stage" of the mining industry's life in certain communities.
My hon. Friends have duly recognised mining museums' contribution to tourism. It is sad that museums are all that we have left, but the nature of coal mining is such that people who do not work in the industry or have associations with it have virtually no appreciation of the conditions in that many men worked for so many years. It is therefore essential that people should be able to see the contribution that mining made to people's lives and the price which people paid as a consequence of it.
Reference has been made today to the fact that one or two communities will have, not a mining museum, but a memorial to the miners whose lives have been lost in the winning of coal. Later this year in the village of Fallin in my constituency, where the Polmaise colliery operated for many years, a mining memorial will be erected with the name of every miner who died in the winning of coal in that community. Due to the research carried out by some men who worked in the mining industry, they have tracked down some 150 people who died in the mining industry in that area. Something similar may be happening across the whole country.
We are concerned not just about the past, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsley said. Few people are better equipped for blowing the trumpet of brass bands than my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsley—[Hon. Members: "Hemsworth."] I am sorry. I know the tune, if not the title. We shall discuss the coal industry social welfare organisation later in our deliberations.
Given the extent to which our traditions and heritage are manifest in those museums, it is essential that we have the continuing support of those who will be responsible for running the industry if the Bill is passed. I therefore support the amendment, which is not a matter of party dispute. It is now incumbent on the Government to provide us with good reasons for saying that they cannot support it. If they cannot support it, they must ensure that the Bill is amended in another place to ensure that the contribution that those museums make to the community and our cultural heritage is sustained. Without the Government's


push and the prodding of the coal authority, it is clear that private mine owners will not fulfil the responsibilities that the mining communities expect of them.
On behalf of the Labour party, I give our overwhelming support to the amendment and hope that the Government will go some way towards meeting the realistic claims of both sides of the Committee for support of the mining museums.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like to intervene briefly to register my party's support for the new clause.
The Minister will realise that, in educational and cultural terms, it is hugely important that museums be preserved. Experience at places such as the slate quarry museums in north Wales shows how popular they are, not just with local communities but with people at large. If a community cannot have a future in an industry—something to which it can look forward with pride—it must at least be able to look back with pride at its past.
It is vital that it be able to do so on site, where the action happened, so that the facility may be part of the community. It is important that we reinforce what were coalfield communities and avoid doing anything more to undermine them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): What we have heard in the debate so far shows the wide interest among hon. Members in the traditions and heritage of coal mining areas. I have been asked a number of questions, to which, although they are not directly relevant to the subject of museums, I shall try to respond.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) asked several questions about houses currently occupied by members of the rescue services. British Coal is considering which properties will be required by successor companies. These will need different treatment. I understand people's concern about the future of their homes, and I can assure British Coal tenants that decisions about ownership will take their interests very much into account. Clearly, the hon. Member for Rhondda will want to pursue the matter further. In view of his experience, I shall probably want to write to him when I have secured more information for him to pass on to his constituents.
I understand the uncertainty surrounding some of the issues that were raised by the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), for Neath (Mr. Hain) and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien).
The hon. Member for Normanton reminded us of the Lofthouse disaster. This is one of the most recent such events occupying people's thoughts, having occurred, I believe, in 1972 or 1973. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong about the date. In terms of the number of people involved, it was a major disaster, and some of us followed the regular daily news bulletins. As the hon. Member for Wakefield pointed out, some bodies were not recovered, having been sealed within the mine. The decision to stop the recovery process was very emotive. Indeed, such situations are always emotive. I understand very well the history and the circumstances of disasters and other events to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
What we have to consider is the best means of moving forward. There has been extensive reference to underground mining museums. I accept that there is a desire to go underground, and that there is huge interest in

such facilities. I do not believe, however, that it is necessary to go underground to appreciate the conditions in which miners had to work.
Indeed, by their very nature, some of the more dangerous areas could never be shown in a museum. They are just too dangerous for visitors. Members of the public can be taken only to the stronger and safer areas. There are several examples of the development of mining equipment and the portrayal of mining conditions. The hon. Member for Rhondda made this point. In an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Neath, he referred to a particular event in his constituency. Perhaps it did not take place underground—I do not know the exact circumstances—but it may clearly have mirrored people's experience on site.

Mr. Rogers: I was referring to the Rhondda heritage park and museum, which is dedicated not only to the history of coal mining in the Rhondda valley—probably the most famous coal mining location in the world—but to the heritage of miners and their families, who came in tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. If the Minister would like to visit the Rhondda, I shall certainly make arrangements for him. He would have to apply to the Secretary of State for Wales for a passport, but I am sure that that difficulty could be overcome.

Mr. McLoughlin: During the passage of the Bill, I have been invited to a few places. Perhaps I shall one day be able to take up some of the invitations. If I were to go to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, it would be a reverse visit, as he regularly visits my old Cannock Chase area.
The park to which the hon. Gentleman referred is not an underground facility such as those we have been talking about. My point is that it is possible to have an above-ground mock-up portraying underground conditions quite realistically. When I was being trained at the Valley training centre in Hednesford, trainees gained experience above ground before going underground.

Mr. William O'Brien: As the Minister suggests, some of these facilities could be provided on the surface. However, it is not possible to re-create on the surface the descent in the cage, travel along underground roadways, or the negotiation, in very limited space, of what we called sleepers. Museums take people from shallow seams—I worked in seams only 3 ft high—to the massive machinery of today. This is the backcloth. These are the significant issues in the portrayal of the history of mining communities. A working pit is the type of museum that we want to see maintained. Because of its importance to communities, I hope that the Minister will not depart from that idea.

Mr. McLoughlin: I certainly will not. I have not visited the mining museum to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, although it is not very far from where I now live. As has been demonstrated, not all facilities are underground.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall give way, but I want to make some progress, as there are many important matters with which we have still to deal—matters just as important as the one we are discussing now.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Most of the comments that we have heard today imply that these are


underground working facilities. If that were the case, it would be perfectly proper and logical that a mines rescue service should be available. However, I can see nothing in the provision to the effect that museums must be underground, even though acceptance of the new clause would involve making a rescue service available. Clearly, this is nonsense in the case of facilities that are above ground. Does not the provision need a good deal of tidying up?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing a distinction between different mining operations, and between different museums. One difference that arises concerns the cost of providing rescue services—a matter to which I shall return shortly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. McLoughlin: I am being pushed from all sides, but I cannot avoid giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock).

Mrs. Peacock: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be misled by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who, although he was not present at the beginning of the debate, talked about the difference between facilities above ground and those underground. Obviously, we are very keen that underground facilities should remain. If the clause is not quite right, we shall accept amendments.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful. I should point out, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton followed the Bill closely in Committee, and is well versed in these matters—but I digress.

Mr. Gunnell: The seam at Caphouse was specially constructed; nevertheless, if people are to go underground, there must be safety arrangements. The Minister and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton would not say' what they had said if they had been to the Yorkshire mining museum and done the underground visit. Some impression of mining can be gained on the surface, but an underground visit is the most accurate guide.

5 pm

Mr. McLoughlin: There we are, then: now I have been told that I have never been down a mine. I shall let it pass, however.
I have given careful consideration to the views put to me during the passage of the Bill about mining museums and their position once we have privatised British Coal. I should welcome any decision by the privatised mining companies to offer voluntary support similar to that currently offered by British Coal, but I firmly believe that it would be wrong to impose a requirement on the private sector. That applies equally to providing services and to making gifts of obsolete machinery and equipment which may be valuable even if it is no longer of use for mining.
The question whether mining museums should be included in the scope of a mine rescue scheme is a matter for the Health and Safety Commission. The commission will introduce new regulations in June, which will be subject to full consultation with all interested parties.
Hon. Members will be aware that, in its advice to us about the post-privatisation safety regime, the HSC has

said that responsibility for regulating health and safety must remain clear and unequivocal and must confirm the need to retain a clear separation between licensing and health and safety regulation. The Government have accepted the commission's advice in full. I therefore cannot accept the proposal to include rescue conditions in the Coal Authority licences.
The Health and Safety Executive is preparing draft regulations on rescue, in full consultation with the national advisory committee on rescue work and rescue apparatus. I assure hon. Members that they will be given due consideration. It is for the Health and Safety Commission to decide on the scope of the proposed regulations, which will of course be subject to full formal consultation with all interested parties.
The Coal Authority will not be in a position to provide the help in kind which the new clause seeks. I believe that the best way for mining museums to obtain technical services and advice is to begin now to explore links with the private mining sector. Specialist museums receive support from a variety of sources, including local authorities, and to some extent from central Government, via the Museums and Galleries Commission. It would seem wrong to single out these museums for exceptional access to central funds, as the new clause proposes.
This is an uncertain time for museums, but I see no reason to be pessimistic. Mining museums are obviously a powerful attraction. Several hon. Members have pointed out how some mining areas are attracting many tourists, thereby bringing in welcome new jobs. They enjoy a fund of good will, as this debate has shown. I feel sure that the museums will find their place in a privatised industry if they respond vigorously to changing circumstances. I believe that mining museums can look forward to a valuable and viable future.
I believe that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who mentioned the Chatterley Whitfield mining museum, has also been associated with the Potteries museum, which has won several national awards—

Ms Walley: The point is that we stand to lose the entire national collection at Chatterley Whitfield, not to mention the items donated locally, because, when private business steps in, charity law does not take precedence over company law.

Mr. McLoughlin: I believe that the circumstances surrounding that museum are still in a state of flux. I understand that British Coal gave the exhibits to the museum in the late 1980s. British Coal hopes that it may prove possible so to arrange matters that the exhibits are passed on to another museum, or the like. I know the museum; I believe that I visited it once. As far as I know, the situation is still changing, and other complicated matters come into play as well—designation, relations with the city council, and so on. I am sure that the hon. Lady will continue to be involved.
Opposition Members have described how these museums were set up in the 1980s in recognition of the historic importance of the industry in mining areas. There is no reason to believe that they will not continue to thrive in the near future.
I must tell the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) that decisions on continued sponsorship of colliery bands are a matter for British Coal. I understand


that the corporation is sympathetic to the Grimethorpe brass band and has agreed to support it, so that it can stay intact while commercial sponsors are found. The hon. Gentleman may want to revisit that point when we discuss the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation.
I hope that the hon. Member for Wakefield will withdraw the new clause. The points that he has raised are important, but are already covered.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I am disappointed with the Minister's response. He has heard Opposition and Conservative Members alike presenting a coherent argument in favour of the new clause and in support of the future operations of the mining museums, including the one in my constituency.
The Minister seemed to rest his case—and he a former miner—on the idea that it is not necessary to go underground to re-create the experience of a working colliery. That is quite wrong. I have visited the Yorkshire mining museum often, and have been down a number of working pits. That museum comes as near as possible to re-creating the environment in which men have struggled for generations.
I went down my first pit when I was 15—Crigglestone in Wakefield. The seam runs underneath the River Calder and is full of water. I remember seeing men in the Manor pit crawling along in seams no more than 2 ft 6 in high. We cannot re-create that for the public, but it is possible to show something akin to the environment in which the work was done.
At the Caphouse museum, there is a crawl-through which children like mine can go through and enjoy, but it does not really re-create the conditions that I could describe to my two children, whose great-grandfather spent six hours pinned under a rock at Walton colliery in Wakefield and broke his back in the process. That should mean something to my children and to future generations of youngsters who will never experience the tragedy of so much that went on in the industry, in Yorkshire and elsewhere.
The Minister's second point—his first would be invalidated by anyone who had been to the Yorkshire museum or any other underground museum—was that museums should talk to private owners in an effort to raise funds. They have done that already. It is thanks to the vision of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council and Wakefield metropolitan district council that we have a Yorkshire mining museum at all. It is also thanks to support from Europe.
The Minister's answer will just leave the museums to wither and die. That is unacceptable. I know that this issue is being taken seriously in another place. I therefore hope that the Minister will go away and think about the points made today and consider what steps the Government might take, when the Bill reaches another place, to deal with them.
On that basis, I am prepared to withdraw the new clause, but I hope that the Minister will take seriously the important arguments that have been advanced in the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2

MEDICAL SERVICE

'.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Health and Safety Executive to promote best standards of occupational health in the coal industry.

(2) To enable the Health and Safety Executive to fulfil its duty under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall make a scheme before the restructuring date which transfers the staff, property functions and duties of the British Coal Medical Service to the Health and Safety Executive.

(3) The Health and Safety executive may impose a levy on licensed operators to meet any costs of providing occupational health services which are not covered by direct charges to users of the service.

(4) The local authority, on the advice of the Health and Safety Executive, may impose a levy on the licensed operators.'.—[Mr. O'Neill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 27, in clause 28, page 23, line 19, at end insert—
'(4A) A licence under this Part shall include a condition which ensures that workmen's inspectors appointed in accordance with section 123 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 receive their normal rate of pay, including any performance-related or production-related bonus, for any time spent performing section 123 duties.'.

Mr. O'Neill: The new clause and the amendment are concerned with two aspects that have already been mentioned—the medical service, which is one of the current, continuing and, we should like to think, future legacies of the coal industry, and health and safety.
The medical services provided by British Coal are comprehensive. They employ doctors, nurses and radiologists. No other occupational health service in Britain is experienced in mining—all the nurses are trained or training to be qualified occupational health nurses. Given the decline in mining, it is unlikely that any other organisation will be able to build such a pool of knowledge in the next couple of years. The best way to maintain the expertise of the British Coal medical service is for it to be assumed by the Health and Safety Executive, which will have some responsibility for ensuring that health standards are met in the coal mining industry.
The expertise of the medical service extends far beyond the problems and the conditions of working miners. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has a private Member's Bill going through the House on the issue of emphysema. Apparently, very few cases of emphysema do not arise from mining. That disease does not emerge immediately, and it is long-term. It is essential that a part of the health service in Britain has the expertise to identify the disease, and that records are kept centrally. New clause 2 seeks to sustain those aspects of the medical service by making them a duty of the Health and Safety Executive.
5.15 pm
The executive is perhaps held in some doubt by some sections of the coal industry, because they assume that it is a poor substitute for the pit deputies in certain safety matters. But we can think of no other organisation that is better equipped to take on responsibility for such matters. We recognise that the Coal Authority is not equipped to take them on. After privatisation, the new licensed mine


owners will not be interested in, concerned about or capable of dealing with those matters. Responsibility should reside with the Health and Safety Executive.
As I said earlier, the executive is not flavour of the month in the mining industry in every respect. The Masham proposals, which have been debated in the House, introduced a new set of health and safety arrangements. They eliminate the role of the deputy. The Bill makes limited reference to matters of health and safety.
We have identified a subject that has not been given proper consideration. Amendment No. 27 deals with people who are almost unique in British industry—the workmen's inspectors, mentioned in section 123 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. They command the respect of their fellow workers; they have to have had five years' experience; they are appointed by the majority union in the mine; and they are given specific responsibility to tour the whole of the mine twice every month. They do so in the boss's time, they are paid and they have an independence that is almost unique in the coal industry.
The deputies' responsibilities had to be met daily. Their status in the mine was rather different from that of workmen's inspectors, but, sadly, the deputies are no more. We still have an independent core of men in the coal industry who, if they are to carry out their responsibilities to the letter, must have a guarantee that they will be paid.
As we understand it, it was regarded as inappropriate to include workmen's inspectors in the 1992 legislation, which extended the right of payment to safety representatives. The mining industry, however, was not covered by that legislation, and it is appropriate that workmen's inspectors should be given the status and the payment. The 1992 legislation does not cover workmen's inspectors.
We are seeking to put mines inspectors on the same footing as those men covered by the Coal Industry Act 1992. As we understand it, they are not covered by that Act. That would enable them to conduct their duties without impediment or financial penalty. If pay for the work of workmen's inspectors is not explicitly the responsibility of the employer in the privatised coal industry, there is a danger that the work will not be carried out as it should be, and some of the men may feel intimidated.
We have seen that, in discussions on the establishment of the work force in some of the collieries that have been abandoned by British Coal, and are being licensed to private owners, the status of the trade unions is dubious. There are suggestions that there will be elaborate screening processes during recruitment so that union-minded, men may be prevented from working in the pits. That may or may not be valid—only time will tell.
We want to ensure that workmen's inspectors, who carry out a unique function in ensuring safety in the mining industry, have the right to inspect the whole of the colliery. They should have access to all equipment, all records and all information. They should work with the confidence of their fellow workers because they are men of experience, they are appointed by the trade union majority in the colliery and their judgment is valued by their fellow workers.
For those reasons, we feel that it is appropriate to fit the two issues together. The medical service of the coal industry should be sustained—it is a unique service in British industry and a unique industry within the British economy.
There is plenty of evidence that the illnesses and injuries sustained by coal miners, in their working lives and beyond, need special care and attention. That expertise should be concentrated in a single medical service. We consider that it would be most appropriate if, after privatisation, such duties were the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive.
As a consequence of the statutory instrument pushed through the House last year, under the health and safety arrangements in the mines the deputy is no longer given his due position in the safety structure. But there is still one independent representative of the working men who is entitled to examine every aspect of the running of the Colliery.
Such an inspector should be entitled to continue that work without the penalty, or the fear of the penalty, of being financially disadvantaged for taking time off during his normal shifts to carry out his important tasks.
At first glance, the amendments appear somewhat disjointed. For the sake of the future confidence of those who work in the mining industry and those whose loved ones work in the mining industry, it is essential to make proper provision for their health and safety and their medical care. We are pleased to propose the amendments and we hope the Minister will accept them as they are constructive and designed to help all those who work in the industry.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I start by making the general point that we felt it necessary to move new clause 2 because, as usual, the Government are making a mess of the privatisation of the coal industry, as they have of every other privatisation. There is absolutely no long-term benefit. The consultation between the Government, British Coal and eggheads in various parts of the country leaves much to be desired; there should have been consultation with people who work in the industry.
British Coal had the finest medical safety set-up anywhere—either on the surface, in industry, or in any other deep mining operation throughout the world. Ian McDonald used to be the Coal Board doctor for the Doncaster area. Each area in Yorkshire had its own doctor. Most of them were specialists. Dr. McDonald specialised in back problems associated with the mining industry. I do not envisage for a moment that the privatised industry will be in any way, shape or form financially inclined to provide such a service. It is important that we should try to ensure that the industry that remains has the best medical and safety set-up in the country. Regrettably, the Government's clause does not do that, hence new clause 2.
The British Coal set-up did not come about suddenly; it was built up over many years of practice and discussion and the Coal Board being pressurised by the NUM to make the necessary safety arrangements. The area consultative committee in Doncaster used to have a safety committee tagged on to it. After a couple of hours on the area consultative committee, we then got on to the safety committee. The safety committee was then set up in its own right. As Doncaster had established the safety committee, it won the best major improvements in British Coal three years on the trot. It is important that what remains of the industry incorporates the best possible practices and customs that have been built up over many decades. The Government will not manage that unless they listen to those who work in the industry.
The section 123 inspectors, who religiously went around each month looking for and pointing out to the management any bad practices that were taking place, found that after the miners' strike the Coal Board did not want to know. I am confident that the new privatised mines with their new private owners certainly will not want to appoint or allow the union to appoint 123 inspectors with powers to stop malpractice.
I hope that the mines inspectorate will be kept separate from the Health and Safety Executive. If they merge, all the specialist knowledge that has been built up over the years by the mines and quarries inspectors will be lost and the Health and Safety Executive will not be inclined to make or maintain any improvements.
As one last point in the quest for safety, I ask the Minister to look yet again at the number of disabled people employed in the industry. The percentage was not achieved in the old British Coal and certainly will not improve under the new privatised industry, although there are statutory regulations to that effect.
I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will have the courtesy to accept new clause 2. It has resulted from consultation with qualified people working in the pits, and it is important to have the best possible standards for the future.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I should like to draw the Minister's attention to two specific points.
First, one advantage of a particular occupational health service is the ability to study new methods. The evolution of the coal mining industry from working in a crude way with men shovelling coal to the sophisticated machinery that is now used was taken on board by the medical experts in the industry. Many hazards were unknown at the time. For example, it was discovered that the oil used for the hydraulic supports was giving men severe dermatitis. If a blister burst or had a small pin prick or hole, it went right through the skin and into the limbs and a major operation was required to remove it because of the high pressure. That study is just a quick example of why the medical group had to work in conjunction with new methods. That alone shows that there should always be preventive medical back-up.
Occupational health was a continuous service where people were systemically X-rayed to make sure that they were not contracting pneumoconiosis or silicosis. Many people were discovered to have lung cancer or something else wrong with them and were sent immediately for treatment. That was also a great benefit. The day-to-day knowledge of the medical experts, allied to the engineering ergonomics of the subject in which they were involved and the special strains and stresses of miners working underground, is unique and it would be criminal to destroy it simply by saying that now British Coal has gone they can have their P45s.
My second point refers to the section 123 inspectors. I should like to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). He referred to their appointment by the NUM or the mining unions, but they were elected; there was an election at the colliery for workmen's inspectors.
The role of the NUM was second to none in educating and training those people, in conjunction with Her Majesty's inspectors of mines in Scotland, who lectured to them on many occasions. It was not them and us; experts on strata control from British Coal and experts on other

types of mine plant and machinery also lectured to them. We were not the custodians of all knowledge; there was a flow of knowledge among workmen, management and Her Majesty's inspectorate, all of them looking after the industry on behalf of the people.
Another unique feature of the 123 inspector was the fact that, by statute, he examined his own place of work. Following that examination, a report was made out and was hung on the pithead and subjected to close examination for seven days; a copy also went to the inspectorate. Moreover, the manager of the mine had to reply to questions and comments in the report within seven days. That illustrates the power of the inspectors—a power, incidentally, that was never used in the context of industrial action: the use of safety provision for such purposes was strongly discouraged, and the inspectors' power was employed only in a sensible, reasonable and constructive way. They were generally admired, and their position was guaranteed.
5.30 pm
Pay is an important issue. We do not want a second-class person to be paid a second-class wage; we want someone at the point of production—at the coal face, in the front of the mine—who stands for election because he will suffer no loss of earnings. If, through no fault of his own, he is elected, why should he lose earnings? After all, he is helping an area, or a section, to exist.
There have been arguments about who is responsible for safety on North sea rigs. An ideal solution would be to transfer responsibility to the people whom I have described: they should become 123 inspectors on the rigs, having received appropriate training. I hope that both management and workmen would be satisfied with such an arrangement, and that it would secure the level of safety that is desirable in an industry that can be at least as hazardous as mining. The status of such inspectors is important, and I hope that it will be maintained.
In the past, some people were blacklisted; despite the law, they did not become 123 inspectors because they had no union protection. If the union was anything, however, it was there to protect the safety of men at work—and this was one way of doing that. Moreover, the safety provision was not granted directly by some divine movement; it was secured as a result of considerable sacrifice and strife, and a terrific loss of blood and, indeed, life. The clause providing for inspectors was earned over many generations by my forefathers and others, who wanted a statutory right to inspection of their workplaces.
I hope that the Minister will take this constructive new clause seriously, and accept it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) mentioned the role of the deputies. Let me put something on record, in case it was not said in Committee.
We would not be discussing the sad role of the deputies—and the fact that the Government have kicked them into touch with their privatisation measure, giving them responsibility for mine safety—if they had not played a significant role in 1984–85. If they had delivered the goods when they secured a ballot vote of 80-odd per cent., we would not be here today talking about privatisation. In her book, the last Prime Minister made it abundantly clear that


if the deputies had decided to act on that ballot result in the middle of the strike she would have lost the battle against the NUM. Now we find ourselves in strange circumstances.

Mr. Simon Burns: rose—

Mr. Skinner: I do not think that I can give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have not much time, and he has plenty to do looking after his own businesses. He is up to the neck in it: he has all sorts of moonlighting jobs. I have just looked them up, and if he wishes to intervene I shall mention them all, so his constituents can learn how much moonlighting he is doing instead of doing his parliamentary job. I shall read them out, if necessary—and refer to one or two more besides.
It is a strange irony that the NUM members among us, and others who supported the miners during the strike, are now battling to introduce a clause giving deputies some power and responsibility—albeit in a roundabout fashion—so that they can perform the duties that they used to perform before the introduction of the Bill and last year's changes.
Mining is an extractive industry; it is not like factory work. That is one of the reasons why privatisation will fail, and why it will be impossible to implement the Government's so-called safety measures. We are dealing with people who, by and large, work down a hole in the ground, where the strata change from day to day. How can such an industry operate on the same basis as, say, the car industry or any other manufacturing industry? We are talking about people who have to deal with mother nature every hour of every day. The Minister should understand that coal mining is an extension of the pit community. Coal could not be dug if people did not collaborate underground in one way or another: that is why it is important to make safety a prime responsibility.
Sadly, safety is no longer the prime responsibility of the deputies. Those who will masquerade as deputies in the future will be responsible for production. Indeed, according to our information, under this privatisation measure the new Coal Authority will have no responsibility whatever for safety; it is not even mentioned. Neither deputies nor anyone else could carry out such responsibilities, because the Bill is all about making vast amounts of money in a relatively short time. That is all that the Government are interested in. They are not interested in a coal industry that will last for 20 or 30 years; those who will run the authority on behalf of the Secretary of State will run it for as short a time as possible to make as much money as possible.
As with the health authorities and all the rest, Tory spivs will be in charge. Perhaps some Tory Members even have little sinecures lined up for the time when the Bill becomes law. They will already be on some board or other, making representations, acting as advisers or consultants and picking up £10,000 or £20,000 a year; then they will talk about idle people who have no jobs in society. You can bet your bottom dollar that they have already lined up some of those jobs run by Tory spivs. Everyone knows, however, that the coal industry cannot be run by people who are interested only in profit; it is a very dangerous industry.
How would the industry manage without the St John's ambulance teams? I do not think that that has been mentioned today, although it was probably mentioned in

Committee. In every pit village, the industry has been run by an assembly of men—sometimes assisted by women—who formed the backbone of that organisation, free of charge. It would be impossible to operate without them. I do not think that the Government have paid any attention to all the free assistance that has been given in respect of health and safety.
According to the latest figures available, a major incident, accident or death is 20 times more possible in a privatised pit than in one in the public sector. Up until 1992, such incidents were five times more likely in the small number of licensed mines—there are more now. According to the latest available figures, it is 20 times more dangerous to work in a privatised pit. The Minister may shake his head, but those are the facts. It is a simple calculation. I know that the Government fiddle the dole figures and the cost of living figures—they fiddle all the figures that they get hold of—but they cannot fiddle the safety figures because they represent people who have died or suffered injuries of one kind or another.
Post-privatisation will be like the pre-war days my father used to tell me about. He said that so many men were available for work in the pits that if it were a question of replacing a man or a pony, the management would sooner replace a man because there were so other men up on the blocks, waiting for a job. There were thousands of such men in every pit village—we all know what it was like in the run-up to the second world war. The cost of replacing a pony was £80. If there were an incident and people were injured or killed, the first thing that the manager asked was, "Have you saved the pony?" He knew that he could replace any number of men. That is what privatisation is all about, and there are 4 million people out of work under this Government.
The Bill and its safety aspects are a deliberate attempt to make a bob or two for the Government's Tory friends and some of the Tory Members of Parliament who will be allied to the industry. It has nothing to do with safety, which is why I believe that we should support the relatively moderate amendment No. 27—it does not ask for the moon—to make safety matters a little more prominent in the Bill.
It will be a sad day when the mines are taken over. The Government are not bothered about people suffering injury and illness—they never have been. They have stripped away many social security measures and the social fabric of all the pit communities and now they are trying to provide a platform for making money. They do not care tuppence about the men, and the women, who have to endure the consequences of their proposals.

Mr. Michael Clapham: New clause 2 and amendment No.27 are extremely important. The new clause calls for the continuation of the medical service which has been built up since 1947 and which provides a bank of information about various diseases connected with the industry. For example, in the case of pneumoconiosis, the qualification period is 10 years underground. If a miner could not prove that he had fulfilled that qualification, he would call on the medical service to prove it.
A man may have worked in the coal industry for many years and sustained an injury perhaps 20 years ago. Having left the industry, he may begin to be troubled by that old injury. When he makes his claim for a disablement assessment, he will be required to show that he has worked


in the industry and that the problem from which he was suffering was the result of an industrial injury. He would most likely call on the coal industry's medical service to substantiate his claim that he had worked in the industry and sustained his injury when he informed the Department of Social Security that he had sustained it. It is important, therefore, that the service is maintained.
Another disease—chronic bronchitis and emphysema—has been accepted in relation to coal mining. The qualification period is 20 years. When a man finds that his period of work in the industry is questioned, the only way in which he is able to substantiate his claim is by calling on the records kept by the medical service. The service is important not only for the keeping records but for monitoring the health and safety of the men who work in the industry.
Radiographs are taken of each miner. The mobile X-ray van travels around the coalfields and tries to ensure that each miner is X-rayed every two years so that his health is continually monitored. Such a provision must be maintained and I hope that the Minister, who was nodding, will confirm that it is to be maintained.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned the industry's safety culture, which is second to none. The British deep coal mining industry is the safest in the world. If one compares the safety record of public sector and private sector mining, it is clear that there is a marked difference. It has already been said that the public sector industry is as much as 20 times safer. We should bear it in mind that, after privatisation, the safety culture is likely to be reduced, and it would be sad and disappointing if the number of accidents in the industry were to degenerate to the level now experienced in the private sector.
5.45 pm
The Minister appears to frown at the suggestion that the level of accidents and fatalities in the private sector is that much higher than in the public sector, but I refer him to the fatality record which is about eight times greater in the private industry than in the public industry. Consequently, there is a need to ensure that the safety culture, which has been maintained in the public sector, is carried on when the industry is privatised.
One way to ensure that the safety culture is maintained is to ensure that workmen's inspectors continue to be elected and to be paid for the duties that they carry out at the collieries, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). The workmen's inspectors buttress the safety culture in the industry and have made British mines the safest in the world.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that the section 123 inspectorate will continue in the same way when the industry is privatised as it did when it was in public hands. Will he also ensure that payments are made to the section 123 inspectorate? In Committee, the Minister said that he would ensure that the safety culture of the public industry was maintained when it was privatised. If he is genuine in that endeavour, he will be able to tell us now that the section 123 inspectorate will continue and that payments will continue to be paid.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I missed the first part of the debate because of parliamentary duty, but I felt it appropriate to speak for a minute.
The Minister has already done the cause of safety in the mining industry a profound disservice by the changes to the mine regulations, which had such a catastrophic effect on the historic role of the colliery deputy. He may recall that I had a meeting with him a year or so ago at which I said that I trusted that, for historic reasons, he would have a care about his position. I said that if more men died or were maimed as a result of a shift in the Government's approach to safety, his name and that of the Secretary of State would go down in history for rather different reasons and with rather different emphasis than they might appreciate now.
There is a vital need to maintain the safety culture in the mining industry. The amendment is vital in part because of the way in which the Minister wishes to structure the industry. If he must have a number of private coal owners, I fear, as many other people fear, that the standards will be those of the lowest required. If he must ensure that some standards of health in the mining industry are retained, there is no better way in which to send signals to that effect than by accepting the amendment, which seems to be perfectly sensible and one which any intelligent or moderate Government would be eager to accept.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: First, may I say that I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) back in his place after a short absence?

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): After a short substitution.

Mr. Hughes: Yes. I had the pleasure of substituting in Committee for my hon. Friend.
It is imperative that we retain some safeguards in mining operations and new clause 2 will do exactly that. I hope that the Minister will accept it. In preparation for coal privatisation, the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 was repealed and replaced by a set of guidelines. That repeal, along with the impending privatisation, will mean—not may mean—that safety standards will be undermined.
The new regulations were introduced via a statutory instrument. I must say to the Minister, as I have said before, that those regulations were slipped through by the Secretary of State for Employment during the summer recess; he presented a statutory instrument in August, which was to be implemented before Parliament resumed in October. When Parliament resumed, we insisted on having a debate, albeit too late. On an issue as important as the scrapping of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, we were allowed a three-hour debate.
The new regulations abolished the pit deputy. As most people who worked in the industry knew, the pit deputy was a buffer between management, which was not only, but mainly, interested in production, and the maintenance of safety. He was not always popular, even among most of the men. Through those regulations, power has been being handed over to the pit manager, who may just be tempted to put production before safety. I hope that that does not happen, but I have a feeling, given my experience in the mining industry, that some people may be a little over-eager and may tend to overlook safety aspects in striving for production goals.
The statutory instrument eliminates statutory duties. It eliminates the words "shall", "will" and "must" from the regulations and introduces words such as "as far as practicable". What does that mean? Who will interpret that


phrase? As far as practicable for what, for whom or for what purpose? That phrase is very dangerous, but the words "shall", "will" and "must" are specific. Everybody knows what "shall", "will" and "must" mean, but not everybody knows what "as far as practicable" means.
Let us consider the private sector's track record in the mining industry, which has already been mentioned by one or two hon. Members. It is absolutely appalling when set against the record of British Coal. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has already mentioned that the number of fatalities in the private sector has been five times higher than it was under British Coal. In the first six months, the major accident rate was 62 per cent. higher than that among people working for British Coal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) mentioned that, over the years, miners who worked for British Coal developed a safety culture attitude. He is absolutely right. It appears that there is no such culture in the private sector; if there were, there would not be such a high accident rate.
Make no mistake, there are probably more miners working for the private sector in British Coal mines than there are British Coal employees. Many jobs that used to be done by employees of the then National Coal Board and British Coal have been taken over by the private sector. Miners who have already started work in the private sector are being shipped around from pit to pit on short-term contracts—one month here, two months there, three months in another pit—and are being asked to work longer hours.
Private companies are insisting that miners work only on short-term contracts and we all know the reasons why. What is really disturbing is that, when they sign the short-term contracts, they are being told that they must work seven days a week and 12-hour shifts or they are not employed. The private companies know that they can go elsewhere for workers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, when he recounted the words of his father from many years ago, the self-same thing is happening to miners now as happened then. The private companies know that there are unemployed miners aplenty who are looking for work and that if people are not prepared to work seven days a week on 12-hour shifts, they can find somebody who will be prepared to work such hours.
Longer hours compromise safety, especially in the mining industry, where there are problems such as humidity, lack of light, dust and heat. Under such circumstances, miners working 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, whether they like it or not, become fatigued. The Government will not accept that longer hours have compromised safety. I suggest that they take another look at the figures and reconsider their attitude on long hours and their relationship to accidents. Clearly, longer hours, stress and fatigue inevitably lead to more accidents.
May I say a few words about amendment No. 27 on the section 123 workmen's inspectors, considering that I spent 11 to 12 years as a workmen's inspector at the Brodsworth mine? Among the management and workers at most collieries, the position of a workmen's inspectors was well respected. They worked hand in hand with the inspectorate, the safety engineer and the safety officer at the pit and, on many occasions, with management, because their attitudes on many aspects never clashed. It was a coveted position.
People stood for election and, once they were elected, they were generally respected by their colleagues. It is essential to support the amendment so that their pay is not affected by carrying out duties as a section 123 inspector. It is not an easy task being a workmen's inspector. Sometimes one receives a little criticism, like the deputies—

Ms Hilary Armstrong: I bet that my hon. Friend did not.

Mr. Hughes: I did on many occasions. I can remember one occasion when I was a new workmen's inspector, full of enthusiasm, fresh from the joint courses with British Coal and the inspectorate of mines and having being taught all the ins and outs of the Mines and Quarries Act, going into a heading and discovering that there were more men in that heading than there should have been by law. There were about 10 men and there should have been only nine. For a workmen's inspector, all that was out of order because there were too many men in the heading. Those men were lugging a great big heavy electric cable; it was unbelievable—and one of them had to leave. The next day when I returned to work I got some aggro from my colleagues, because it meant that fewer of them helped to hump that enormous cable through the heading. So there can be criticism, too.
6 pm
The duties of a workmen's inspector start when he arrives at the pit and systematically goes round the chosen district for that day. There is usually a joint inspection, because the inspector is accompanied by the safety officer or safety engineer and the district under-manager. When he gets down to a particular coal face, the senior overman or the deputy accompanies him. Often, many of the little problems spotted by the inspector can be put right on the spot, or the deputy can deploy somebody to sort them out.
The more serious problems would go into a report posted at the colliery and displayed there for seven days, and also sent to the mines inspector so that he could pick up recurring issues that the management were not systematically putting right.
The job was not simply a matter of visits; the inspectors put a lot of their own time in, too. That is why I am arguing that they should not lose pay by carrying out the inspections. They need to keep checking up to see how the problems raised during the inspection have been dealt with—whether they have been dealt with properly, or even at all. Often, after an inspection a discussion will take place in the safety office, and if there is a serious problem the workmen's inspector will ask to see the manager and take the issue up with him.
With a more serious issue, if the inspector feels that he is not getting satisfaction from local management he can get directly in touch with Her Majesty's inspector of mines. The position of a section 123 inspector is a serious one, and people genuinely take their duties seriously. So it is essential that the Minister accepts amendment No.27.

Mr. Bill Etherington: I declare an interest: I am sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers, and I am proud of it. It is a sad day for the NUM when the Bill is going through Parliament—and a sad day for the country as a whole, too. I cannot help thinking that the Conservative Benches—Conservative Members would have been in opposition in those days—


must have been fuller when we were going the other way and nationalising the industry; Conservative Members must have shown more interest then.
I shall speak briefly because I had my say in Committee and I know that others are anxious to speak now. In Committee, we spent many hours discussing the subject. It is partly because the Opposition members of the Committee were not totally satisfied with the Minister's assurances that we tabled the new clause and amendment No.27.
I do not want to go over ground that has been adequately covered by my hon. Friends, but I must tell the Minister, as I have told him before, that one of the most important aspects of the duties, responsibilities and functions of the British Coal medical service was the keeping of records. People could find out about accidents that had happened many years ago and examine information about their chest X-rays. Because there has been such a rapid rundown in the industry it is vital that in the years ahead people who find that they have health problems should be able to get access to such information. It is imperative that that information be vested in a good reliable body. The Health and Safety Executive could well take over that function.
The present pneumoconiosis scheme agreed by the Government, the union and what was then the National Coal Board, came into existence because of the Pickles case—the first successful attempt to obtain damages from the employer for pneumoconiosis. That came about because the Coal Board did not have adequate records of the dust samples from the colliery in which Mr. Pickles had worked. Emphysema, bronchitis and so on can take many years to develop and we do not want the Pickles case to be repeated in years to come when people find that they have such conditions. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the new clause, which would do nothing more than the Minister said in Committee he was willing to do.
As for amendment No.27, like my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) I have been involved in section 123 inspections. I used to be a member of an ad hoc body run exclusively by section 123 inspectors, with no involvement by trade union officials or management. I have a gold watch in my pocket that was presented to me by that body, and I am proud of it.
There is more in the provision than meets the eye, because there seems to be a genuine misunderstanding not only of the role of the section 123 inspector but of how that role came about. In 1872, miners first acquired a statutory right to inspect and report on their own workplaces, because the Government realised that the Government inspectorate was not large enough to deal with the many inspections required in an industry that was both dangerous and not very well run—which is what one would expect under private enterprise.
With one or two exceptions for very small workplaces, those rights became the province of all working people 105 years later, under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977, SI 500, which gave the right for inspections to be carried out quarterly at all workplaces. Because the mining industry did not have that statutory right, there was a collective agreement between the Coal Board and the union to provide for inspections to be carried out in every part of a mine every two months, and to be paid for by the employer. Over and above that, the miners had the right to carry out a monthly inspection at their own

expense. If they wished to carry out that monthly inspection, they would pay for it themselves; the second month the employer would pay, and so on.
I want the Minister to bear in mind the fact that we do not want the section 123 inspectors to be reduced to conducting quarterly inspections. One reason why that should not happen was revealed in a conversation I had some years ago with a Government inspector—we used to talk to them, and even to the Coal Board, at times. That inspector was concerned about the appalling rate of accidents in private mines and asked whether the NUM would mind if he concentrated more on the private mines and less on the nationalised sector. We agreed because we understood that that need was paramount. The Government inspector was having great difficulty in getting people in the private sector to accept the section 123 inspector's job. That was why he was having to devote more of his time to the private sector.
Unlike the Government, I believe that things will get worse in the industry after privatisation. The Government inspectorate will be engulfed with problems. Never has there been a time when the section 123 inspector—the miners' own inspector—has been more necessary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) said, it should never be forgotten that when the section 123 inspector writes his report and the local colliery manager has made his responses, the completed report goes to the Government inspector, who can have an overview of what is going on at any colliery without having to visit it himself.
I hope that the Minister will ensure that any employer who tries to prevent any workman from carrying out those duties, which are more than 110 years old, will be vigorously dealt with. I hope that the Government will ensure that the Health and Safety Executive does its job properly and brings any such employer to book.

Mr. Peter Hain: A few weeks ago, in my home village of Resolven, I was woken up early by an ambulance coming through the village. As my hon. Friends who live in pit villages will know, that sends more than the usual tremor through a coal mining community. When I phoned the Lyn mine above the village of Cwmgwrach a few hours later, the person who answered the phone told me not to worry, because the worker who had attracted the ambulance had only broken his jaw.
That is against a background of two deaths in private licensed mines in the Neath constituency in the past two years. Another worker was paralysed from the waist down. He was an excellent rugby player as well, so that was especially tragic.
There are 36 private mines in the Neath constituency—more than anywhere else in the country—employing nearly 450 workers. There are many good employers among them. There are many family firms that have mined for many years, and they have a good relationship with their work force. They produce coal for the domestic market and are well regarded in the community.
We also have Ryan Mining International, which has rightly been heavily criticised in recent weeks for the treatment of its work force. Nevertheless, it has made a huge investment in the community and is building a major railhead to reopen the Vale of Neath railway line to transform the transportation of coal from road to rail, and that is welcome.
That picture shows the ominous future which the Bill will usher in and make the norm throughout the country—the ominous future of privatisation. For many decades, men have been treated at least like human beings by British Coal, but they will no longer have that certainty. In the Neath constituency, for example, private mine workers go around the pubs on Friday night to find the foreman so that they can get their pay, because they cannot find him anywhere else. If they are unlucky and he does not happen to be in a particular pub, they must wait until the following week to be paid.
Health and safety are cut to the bone. Men are often not paid with proper pay slips, as required under the contracts of employment legislation, which stipulate their bonus payments, Saturday work, overtime and so on; they are simply handed a lump sum of money. They are instructed to work over Christmas in defiance of agreements with their employer, as is the norm in the coal industry. They are often dismissed before two years are up—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of new clause 2.

Mr. Hain: I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply wanted to paint the broader picture in which the conditions that men work under in the private mines in my constituency have a bearing on health and safety. I shall now concentrate on that.
The figures—I had this argument with the Minister in Committee—provided by the Health and Safety Executive, and supplied by the Library of the House, show that the fatal accident rate is much higher for licensed mines, at 1.82 per 1,000 employees, than it is for British Coal mines, where it is 0.08. That means that a miner is 23 times more likely to die in a private licensed mine than in a British Coal mine. There has been a marked deterioration in the fatal accident rate in licensed mines since 1989–90.

Mr. Eggar: To give a fair balance in what is an important debate, can the hon. Gentleman read from that same agency report the major accident rate, and the fatal and major accident rate, in British Coal and licensed mines? It is right that he should put that on the record.

Mr. Hain: I am happy to do so. According to the statistics of the Health and Safety Commission, the major accident rate in British Coal mines in 1992–93 was 8.60 per 1,000 employees; in licensed mines, it was 4.24. The fatal and major accident rate for British Coal in 1992–93 was 8.68 per 1,000 employees; in licensed mines, it was 6.06.
The Minister invited me to draw attention to those figures, and it is proper for him to do so. However, with regard to the accident figures—unlike the fatal accident figures—the Health and Safety Executive specifically draws attention to the fact that there are sharp fluctuations because of the smaller statistical base, especially in private mines.
The important point about fatal accidents—after all, if a man loses his life underground, he loses his life; there is no argument about that—is that a miner is 23 times more likely to die in a private mine than in a British Coal mine, according to the latest figures.

Mr. Rogers: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in many private mines, proper records of accidents are not kept and the accident book is not always kept up to date, as it should be?

Mr. Hain: I listen to what my hon. Friend says. It is fair enough to paint the wider picture of accidents in private mines. I regret that the Minister seems to be reluctant to concede—as he was in Committee, and as the Department of Employment refused to do in a written reply to me on this matter—the fact supplied by the Health and Safety Executive: that a miner is 23 times more likely to die under privatisation, although that is the regime that the Government are ushering in and sanctifying in law.

Mr. Redmond: As figures are being bandied about, I wonder whether the Minister has the figures for the accidents and fatalities that took place before nationalisation of the industry, because the search for profits brought a complete lack of safety. As privatisation is about profits, I am sure that my hon. Friend probably wants to say a few words about that.

Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes his point tellingly, because we are now in an era—we have seen it in the Neath constituency, and we have seen the consequences in terms of fatalities—in which life is increasingly becoming cheap, and in which profits and the stiff winds of competition which restrict those profits, and the ability to provide health and safety conditions and other support for working conditions, which have been the norm of British Coal, are inevitably constrained in private mines.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) mentioned the situation since nationalisation, I draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that, in December 1990, the Select Committee on Energy published a report on safety in coal mines. That report said that, between 1900 and 1946—in other words, in the privatised era—the chance of a man being killed at work in the United Kingdom coal industry reduced from one in 770 to one in 1,300; in other words, it roughly halved.
However, in the 40 years since nationalisation, the chance of being killed has reduced much further, to one in 11,600 in 1987–88, the safest year in terms of fatal accidents. In other words, the chance of being killed has reduced 10 times since nationalisation. We now have the safest pits in the world—or at least we will have until the Bill becomes law.
We are seeing history go in reverse. We are going back to the future. We are going back to an era in which accidents and fatalities will increase, because the Government are obsessed with deregulation, and with profit being the driving force of all the activity, rather than the protection of mineworkers who generate the wealth on which the country has depended for many decades.

Mr. Eggar: It is fair to say that we have had a general debate about safety matters. I make absolutely no complaint about that, because, obviously, safety is extremely important to anyone who is in any way associated with the mining industry. The Government have made it absolutely clear that the paramount issue as we approach privatisation of the mining industry is the preservation of high safety standards. It is precisely for that reason that we have accepted the recommendations of the Health and Safety Commission at every stage.
I understand the involvement of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) with the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, and his genuine commitment to the cause of improving safety in the mines. However, he must appreciate that the Masham package has been the result of extensive consultation. It is not the act of some wicked Tory Government, but rather the recommendation of the tripartite Health and Safety Commission after as much as eight years of consultation. The hon. Gentleman should have been fair to me and the House by putting that on the record and putting it in perspective.
I will not say that the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) made a speech which was word for word the same speech as he made in Committee, but it bore a remarkable similarity to it. If one were to run his speech through a word processor, one would find considerable repetition. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would do very well in the game that one occasionally hears played on the radio.
The hon. Member for Neath returned to the same points that he had raised, but this time—carried away, as usual, with his own eloquence—he went further. I did not get the precise words down, but he said that the figures which he quoted show that privatised mines were 23 times more dangerous than British Coal mines. He has moved on from looking at the statistics for fatal accidents for last year, and has now, so to speak, made a prediction as a matter of certainty. The hon. Gentleman is ignoring such simple facts as that the privatised industry will include many of the mines that are currently owned and run by British Coal.
I do not want to belittle the extremely important issue of safety, and the need to make sure that the privatised industry carries forward mining at least as safely as, and, let us hope, more safely than, British Coal, by bandying statistics across the Floor of the House. I recognise, as every hon. Member does, that one fatality or one major accident in the mining industry is one too many. We all have a duty to try to make sure that the improvements that have been made both in the private licensed sector and in British Coal continue.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) mentioned the safety record pre-nationalisation. It was, by today's standards, absolutely appalling. It is because the record was so bad, and because there have been so many improvements as a result of the work done by the Health and Safety Commission and through health and safety legislation, that we want to make sure that the recent improvement in the record is maintained.
I turn now to the precise terms of new clause 2. First, I understand the significant contribution that has been made by the medical service. I met a number of individuals who were associated with the rescue at Bilsthorpe when I went there with the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). I am aware of the major contribution that the medical service has made, not just to the particular problems associated with mining but to furthering occupational health in this and other industries. The service has contributed considerably to the general expertise in that area.
As with all other safety matters, the Government have taken the advice of the Health and Safety Commission. The Commission believes that there is already a sufficient framework of law in place which will require employers in the mining industry, including future private sector employers, to carry out all necessary health surveillance.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) said that the necessary medical records must be maintained, and that is obviously extremely important. The commission advised us that it must be for employers to determine how they should best meet the established standards, and it is for them to choose how they should carry out medical examinations. The commission's view clearly was that new legislation of the type proposed in the new clause is not required.

Mr. O'Neill: Was the Health and Safety Commission advice based on the experience of British Coal or on the experience of the existing private mines, the way in which they operate in the United Kingdom, and the way in which they keep records and look after the health of their employees?

Mr. Eggar: My understanding is that the commission's advice was based on its analysis of the present framework of law, and on experience within the mining industry as a whole. The commission, having first said that the framework was right, then expressed the view—as have Opposition Members—that British Coal's medical service provided a valuable centre of expertise. The commission expressed the view that employers within the privatised industry might well wish to continue to have the opportunity to purchase the services of the medical service.
A body of expertise has been built up. The commission recognises that, but it does not think that it is essential to continue it. However, it feels that the option should be made available to future purchasers. British Coal is looking at the advice that has been given and the views put forward by the Health and Safety Commission, and it is currently considering options for the future of the medical service.
British Coal is responsible for the medical service, and has assured the Department that its proposals for the future of the service will be fully consistent with the commission's advice.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the Minister assure the House that British Coal will give some consideration to how medical records are to be co-ordinated for people who work in the private sector, both now and in the future? Those people are working on the short-term contracts I talked about. How will the records be co-ordinated? At the moment, they are moving from pit to pit and working for different companies. It may be difficult to co-ordinate the health records, and it is important that that is done.

Mr. Eggar: I understand that. The Health and Safety Commission has made it clear that it believes that the legal framework is the right one, and an additional amendment is not needed. I am sure that British Coal will want to take into account matters such as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman when it looks at the future of the medical service. Of course, it will be a matter for the private sector purchasers, but I will draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of British Coal. I recognise that, certainly in the short term, it is a matter of considerable concern.
I hope that I have been able to give the reassurance that is necessary because of the genuine concerns in the new clause. Turning to amendment No. 27, I say—not least because the hon. Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Sunderland, North have been so active on section 123 inspections—that the Government completely accept that section 123 plays a valuable part in the health


and safety system. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that those section 123 inspections continue to play the role that they have done for a number of years.
The House will understand that this is a matter for the Health and Safety Commission and for health and safety legislation. The medium suggested by amendment No. 27—in other words, the inclusion of the condition with regard to section 123 in the licences, which is the precise methodology used in the amendment—is, I suggest, not the right way forward. The Health and Safety Commission has made it clear that it believes that it is important that there should be a separation between its powers on the one hand and the conditions, licences and any powers of the Coal Authority on the other.
The Health and Safety Executive is examining how best to strengthen the existing section 123 system by extending to mines the provisions of safety representatives and safety committees regulations—this is the point which was made almost universally by Opposition Members—which provide for the payment of safety representatives while they carry out their duties.
The Health and Safety Executive tells me that a consultation document with proposals will be published shortly, and that the proposals will relate to recommendations for payment. I understand that it is the commission's firm intention that the consultation document should be in place, and that consultation should be concluded by the time privatisation takes place.

Mr. Eric Clarke: The division worries me a little. One of the problems raised when the law to create the commission was passed was the dilution of the powers of the mines inspectorate under section 123 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. Will the Minister give me an assurance that he will recommend something along the lines of what is contained in amendment No. 27? That would satisfy me, and I am sure that it would satisfy my colleagues.

Mr. Eggar: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that I will recommend the contents of the amendment, because it goes against the basic split recommended by the Health and Safety Commission. We have accepted that there should be a difference between the health and safety aspects of mines and the licence terms and the role of the Coal Authority. We do not want any interweaving or double-tracking in safety matters. It seems to me that there must be clarity.
The basic thrust of the amendment relates to payment of section 123 inspections. The Health and Safety Commission will consult. It is a matter for the commission, but my understanding is that the consultation paper it puts out will include recommendations on payment of representatives involved in section 123 inspections. I hope that the Opposition will feel able to withdraw new clause 2 and amendment No. 27.

Mr. O'Neill: Amendment No. 27 has fulfilled its purpose, because we now have a clearer idea of the Government's intentions, although we shall have to wait and see what emerges in the form of a consultative document. Therefore, we shall not seek to press amendment No. 27 to a vote, on the understanding that, when the appropriate mechanism is available to us, we shall undoubtedly wish to debate it further. The

Department of Employment will undoubtedly be the lead Department in the matter. Given the close interrelationship between the Coal Authority and the Health and Safety Commission, no matter how much the Minister wishes to separate the two, we shall need to look at the matter again.
The Minister has conceded our case on the medical service. He has given notice that the Health and Safety Executive has come a long way on the issue, but we are not satisfied with what has been said. We believe that it is essential that the medical service continues to exist to care for existing mineworkers and those who have worked in the mining industry in the past and will suffer from illnesses and conditions related to mining, such as industrial deafness and the pulmonary diseases which are so much a facet of the lives of retired miners or those who have left the industry.
For the reasons that I have given, we insist on pressing new clause 2 to a vote. We consider that the medical service is of vital importance. It is one of the jewels in the crown of British Coal. We do not wish to see the coal industry lose it. We do not think that medical services should be left to the philanthropy of private mineowners. If there is one group that has been characterised by its meanness and indifference to the health and safety of its work force, it is private mineowners.
Various statistics have been bandied about today on what life was like in the coal industry before nationalisation. All I can say is that, in 1946, immediately before the mines were taken into public ownership, one miner died every eight-hour shift, and 1,000 men died every year in order that we could have coal. That figure has fallen dramatically, partly because fewer miners are employed, but more than anything because of the care about health and safety and the medical service that mineworkers demanded. We do not want to see what they have achieved thrown aside. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in support of new clause 2.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 298.

Division No. 174]
[6.35 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boyes, Roland


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bradley, Keith


Ainger, Nick
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Allen, Graham
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Burden, Richard


Armstrong, Hilary
Byers, Stephen


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Caborn, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim


Austin-Walker, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barnes, Harry
Canavan, Dennis


Barron, Kevin
Cann, Jamie


Battle, John
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Chisholm, Malcolm


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Clapham, Michael


Bell, Stuart
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benton, Joe
Clelland, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Berry, Roger
Coffey, Ann


Betts, Clive
Connarty, Michael


Blair, Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blunkett, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin






Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cummings, John
Jowell, Tessa


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Keen, Alan


Dafis, Cynog
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Dalyell, Tam
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Darling, Alistair
Khabra, Piara S.


Davidson, Ian
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Litherland, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Livingstone, Ken


Dixon, Don
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dobson, Frank
Llwyd, Elfyn


Donohoe, Brian H.
Loyden, Eddie


Dowd, Jim
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McAllion, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAvoy, Thomas


Eagle, Ms Angela
McCartney, Ian


Eastham, Ken
McCrea, Rev William


Enright, Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Etherington, Bill
McFall, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McKelvey, William


Fatchett, Derek
Mackinlay, Andrew


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McLeish, Henry


Flynn, Paul
Maclennan, Robert


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Foster, Don (Bath)
McNamara, Kevin


Foulkes, George
McWilliam, John


Fraser, John
Madden, Max


Fyfe, Maria
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Galloway, George
Mahon, Alice


Gapes, Mike
Mandelson, Peter


Garrett, John
Marek, Dr John


George, Bruce
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Godsiff, Roger
Martlew, Eric



Golding, Mrs Llin
Maxton, John


Gordon, Mildred
Meacher, Michael


Gould, Bryan
Meale, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Michael, Alun


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Miller, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gunnell, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Hain, Peter
Morley, Elliot


Hall, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hanson, David
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mudie, George


Harvey, Nick
Mullin, Chris


Henderson, Doug
Murphy, Paul


Heppell, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hinchliffe, David
Olner, William


Hoey, Kate
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Home Robertson, John
Parry, Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Patchett, Terry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L.


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Prescott, John


Hutton, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Illsley, Eric
Purchase, Ken


Ingram, Adam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Radice, Giles


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Redmond, Martin





Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Tipping, Paddy


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Turner, Dennis


Rogers, Allan
Vaz, Keith


Rooker, Jeff
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rowlands, Ted
Wallace, James


Ruddock, Joan
Walley, Joan


Salmond, Alex
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N


Sheerman, Barry
Watson, Mike


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Welsh, Andrew


Short, Clare
Wicks, Malcolm


Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Snape, Peter
Wilson, Brian


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Spearing, Nigel
Worthington, Tony


Spellar, John
Wray, Jimmy


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wright, Dr Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stevenson, George



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Straw, Jack





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coe, Sebastian


Aitken, Jonathan
Congdon, David


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arbuthnot, James
Couchman, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cran, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Ashby, David
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Day, Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Devlin, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Dickens, Geoffrey


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dorrell, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bates, Michael
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan, Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Bob


Beresford, Sir Paul
Durant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eggar, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Elletson, Harold


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Booth, Hartley
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bowden, Andrew
Evennett, David


Bowis, John
Fabricant, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brandreth, Gyles
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Graham
Fishburn, Dudley


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Forth, Eric


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Budgen, Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burns, Simon
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Butler, Peter
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butterfill, John
French, Douglas


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fry, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gale, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Gallie, Phil


Carttiss, Michael
Gardiner, Sir George


Cash, William
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clappison, James
Garnier, Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gill, Christopher


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gillan, Cheryl






Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mates, Michael


Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moate, Sir Roger


Hague, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, Sir John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hargreaves, Andrew
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawksley, Warren
Norris, Steve


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heald, Oliver
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Richards, Rod


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Riddick, Graham


Jenkin, Bernard
Robathan, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sackville, Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)



Knox, Sir David
Shersby, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sims, Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Legg, Barry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sproat, Iain


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stem, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stewart, Allan


Maclean, David
Streeter, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Madel, Sir David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Martand, Paul
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marlow, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter





Thomason, Roy
Watts, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Thurnham, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Widdecombe, Ann


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Tracey, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Tredinnick, David
Willetts, David


Trend, Michael
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Viggers, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Yeo, Tim


Walden, George
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Ward, John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

MINEWATER

'.—(1) Conditions included in any licence under Part II of this Act shall include a requirement on the holder of the licence to prevent discharges of minewater from the mine at any time unless authorised by the National Rivers Authority.

(2) The duty under subsection (1) above shall include a duty to continue pumping operations until the licence is transferred to another person or the Authority assumes responsibility for pumping.

(3) The Authority shall not permit the holder of a licence under Part II of this Act to allow minewater to be discharged unless authorised by the National Rivers Authority.

(4) In an emergency, any person authorised by the Authority may enter a coal mine or pumping station operated by a holder of a licence under Part II of this Act to ensure that pumping is continued in pursuance of the Authority's duty under subsection (3) of this section.'.—[Mr. Bell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 41, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, leave out 'and' and insert
'(dd) monitoring, controlling and preventing pollution arising from present and former coalmining activity, including that caused by polluted minewater, in a manner that ensures the protection of the environment; and'.
No. 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 33, after 'subsidence', insert 'or minewater'.
No. 55, in clause 3, page 4, line 17, at end add—
'(9) It shall be the duty of the Authority, in carrying out its functions under this Act, to use its best endeavours to protect the water environment.
(10) In this section "water environment" means water quality, and land drainage and flood defence systems where that water and those systems are affected by coalmines operated by any person licensed under Part II of this Act, or are affected by abandoned coalmines.'.
No. 7, in clause 53, page 48, line 41, at end add—
'(5A) Section 89(3) of the Water Resources Act 1991 shall be amended by inserting after the word "mine" the words "other than an abandoned coal-mine.".'.
No. 15, in schedule 11, page 155, line 26, at end insert:—
'1991 c. 57
Section 89(3)'.

Mr. Bell: We are now discussing one of the major items of the Bill, dealing with mine water. You might feel,


Madam Deputy Speaker, that mine water is not a subject of great attraction or of great interest, but it is a matter of major concern, not only throughout the former Durham coalfield, but throughout the country where there have been mine workings in the past. In my area of Durham today, The Northern Echo, our local newspaper, devoted much of its front page to the problems that will, and can, arise from mine water.
The new clause deals with licences and the need to pump the mine water out of the ground. That subject is not limited to the debate tonight. The issue was first mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), whom I am very glad to see in his place. He raised the issue in an Adjournment debate. He spoke of water table rebounds, of iron pyrites, of adits—a horizontal or near-horizontal tunnel from the surface into a mine for entry, drainage or exploration.
We also had a ten-minute rule Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), who is also in his place tonight. In a short and eloquent speech, he described the effects of pollution from abandoned mines. He gave a graphic description of what can happen with such pollution, when he described the red stain sediment from dissolved iron salts. He also described the effects on the overall ecosystem of such pollution. My hon. Friend rendered us a service and widened the debate by giving examples from south Wales of the effects of pollution of rivers from abandoned pits.
One of the essences of the debate tonight has arisen already from that Adjournment debate and that ten-minute rule Bill is the question, who will take ultimate responsibility for mine water pollution? Where does the buck stop? We have asked in Committee, on the Floor of the House, in meetings with Ministers in the Department of the Environment and with Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry: who will eventually take responsibility for that mine water?

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is even more important, because one would have thought that, in the light of Wheal Jane—which my Cornish colleagues became very exercised about—the issue would have been resolved. It was not resolved adequately then. The historic lesson has not been learnt and the issue still has not been expressly tackled by the Government.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring us to Wheal Jane, and I think that he will speak later. If my memory serves me right, the problem of Wheal Jane was the problem of a tin mine. There was a discharge of red-brick-coloured metal-laden waters. That was of great concern, obviously, to all Government Departments as well as local citizens. One of the aspects of Wheal Jane was that we realised that we were falling foul of EC directive 80/68 on groundwater protection. One would have thought, as a result of all that anxiety, that the Government would have responded more strongly.
In fact, we realised that there was probably a legislative loophole on the subject of mine water. Section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 provides for prosecution of river polluters and for recovery from a polluter of the costs of cleaning. There was one exemption—an important and significant exemption, to which the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) can refer, because she has tabled an amendment on the same subject. Abandoned mines were exempted from the 1991 Act.
The Royal Commission on environmental pollution in 1992 recommended legislative action to cover the fact that no one would be responsible for polluted water from abandoned workings. We have gone through the Bill in Committee, and various statements have been made by Ministers, yet we are still here, confronted by the situation that, when pumps are switched off in a pit, the natural forces that make that water rise will come into play and will be allowed to operate.
A sombre picture has been painted of what will happen when the pumps are finally turned off in what we can now describe as the "old Durham coalfield". That coalfield once produced 35 million tonnes of coal every year, and now it does not produce coal through a nationalised industry.
What will happen when those pumps are turned off? We know as a matter of fact that British Coal currently pays about £6 million a year to pump the coalfield, as it is. It certainly spends £1 million on pumping 10 disused pits in the coalfield. If the pumping stations at Vinovium, Page Bank and Ushaw Moor were to close, the consequences might be catastrophic for Durham.
It is not for a Member of Parliament to use excessive language on the Floor of the House and to communicate fears to a population, but nevertheless the consequences will be extremely grave in locations along the Wear valley, south-west of Durham, in the vicinity of Bishop Auckland—I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) in his place—and in Durham city. Members of Parliament are here from the Durham coalfield, and my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) is here, among others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings), who played such a strong role in Committee and made some strong statements, said that there could be an "orange collar" around a world heritage site. He meant the Norman cathedral at Durham and the peninsula around the city.
In addition to the expressions of Members of Parliament, statements have been made by experts in the field. Dr. Paul Younger of Newcastle university has said that Durham could experience
potentially the biggest single drainage of acid from mines we have seen … 300 years of stored up pollution could be coming to the surface.
It has been said—we have heard it many a time—that coal mining in Durham goes back about 400 years. There is a honeycomb of former mines under the ground there. We all learned from pit village to pit village when we were young the background, the history and the traditions. We all know the consequences of water in a pit.
We are discussing tonight nothing less than a Domesday scenario, which could affect the former Durham coalfield and the people who live there. There has been some movement in relation to British Coal and the National Rivers Authority. There has been a slight movement to the effect that British Coal—

Mr. Ted Rowlands: My hon. Friend has clearly and vividly described to us the problems of the Durham coalfield. May I draw to his attention the fact that we are very worried that the south Wales coalfield will manifest the same problems? The River Rhymney showed similar problems when the pumps stopped at the Britannia colliery, and I fear that, with the closure of Taff Merthyr, we could be facing similar


problems on the River Taff. When my hon. Friend speaks for Durham, he speaks for the whole of the south Wales coalfield, too.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I tried to preface my remarks by saying that this was a national problem wherever coal had been mined in the country. That included south Wales. It certainly covers Durham and Northumberland. My hon. Friends the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) are in their places.
We are conscious that what we are debating tonight is not only Durham, but any part of the country where there have been coal mines, and, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) reminded me, tin mines in the south-west of the country. So we are aware that the context is far greater than the narrow issue confronts us in the Bill. The consequences are greater than those that affect the Durham coalfield.
The only result of the pressure and the publicity and the anxieties of our people has been an agreement by British Coal to give the National Rivers Authority two weeks' notice before it switches off pumps at any of its pits. That is not a satisfactory response to the important matters that have been brought to the Government's attention.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) in his place. Unfortunately, he had an accident in heavy snow on the first day of the Committee and could not take part in its further proceedings. Nevertheless, when he was there he said that the two-week period of grace was simply a "short-term palliative". I entirely agree with him.
The Minister gave his view on the matter in Committee. He said that the Coal Authority will be responsible for water pollution from abandoned mines except to the extent that any part of the responsibility may be passed to the private sector through leases. That is not an adequate response for people who live in those areas or those who seek to protect the environment.
7 pm
The new clause says that it shall be a condition of a licence that there be
a requirement on the holder of the licence to prevent discharges of minewater from the mine at any time unless authorised by the National Rivers Authority
and that there shall be included
a duty to continue pumping operations until the licence is transferred to another person or the Authority assumes responsibility for pumping.
That seems to meet the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Gower made in his 10-minute Bill. What will happen if the Coal Authority grants a licence to a company to work a mine and the company eventually abandons the mine? Who will be responsible for pumping the water? Shall we not be back in the same position if British Coal, the Coal Authority and everybody else wash their hands of the responsibility? It will simply become an abandoned mine with no one responsible for the mine water pollution.
A strong delegation, particularly from Durham county council, has come to the House today to brief Members of this House and the House of Lords from all parties about the risks in Durham if no positive steps are taken to maintain pumping.
Under the Bill, we have discussed licensing of mining safety, pension rights, concessionary fuel, coal bed methane, exploitation and subsidence, but we cannot discuss mine water pollution or pumping because that subject is not in the Bill. In Committee, we tried to put it on the same footing as subsidence, which is why we have moved another amendment to cover mine water pollution.
We do not accept that clause 3(7), which deals with the Coal Authority's duties, sufficiently covers mine water pollution. My hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Mr. Hain) and for Easington explained people's anxieties about that matter in different parts of the country. In Committee, the Government sought to shuffle their responsibility on to the Coal Authority and the National Rivers Authority without being specific. They will simply set the National Rivers Authority and British Coal at each other's throats in the courts, trying to bring injunctions to avoid taking the necessary action.
The time has come for the Government to make a clear commitment by accepting new clause 3 and to recognise the serious dangers of water pollution where coal has been mined, such as in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. Wherever coal has been mined, people will be affected. The running and shuffling must stop, as must the buck passing between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry. The Government must take the necessary action and accept the new clause. As there is all-party support for other amendments on this issue, we hope to carry the House with us, should it come to a vote.

Mrs. Peacock: Pollution from contaminated mine water occurs when water floods old mine workings and carries pollutants, notably iron and sulphur, to the surface via rivers and other water sources. The polluted mine water contaminates those sources, destroying wildlife and discolouring the water.
British Coal has always kept its working mines free of water by a network of pumping stations, which it may shut down when pits close. It now has an agreement to inform the National Rivers Authority before turning off any pumps. Like other mine operators, British Coal is exempted by the Water Resources Act 1991 from prosecution for knowingly permitting water pollution and has not yet been successfully prosecuted for causing pollution.
British Coal has no clear liability for pollution from mine water, although it has operated a "good neighbour" policy and maintained pumping. It is therefore not possible automatically to transfer liability to the Coal Authority, which must be specifically directed to take on responsibility for mine water pollution from former British Coal mines. The new industry will not be obliged to adopt British Coal's "good neighbour" policy or take up its existing agreement with the NRA.
I appreciate that the Department of the Environment is reviewing laws on water pollution, but there is no indication of when that will be completed or whether this issue will be addressed. The Bill should establish liability for the historical environmental legacy of coal mining. Once pollution has occurred, remedial action is costly and it may take years to reverse the damage.
It is important that we ensure, during the passage of the Bill, that we do not allow pollution of our water courses. We currently spend millions of pounds on cleaning up our


rivers, beaches and water courses. My hon. Friend the Minister will agree that we would not want to put that at risk by allowing a loophole in the Bill.

Ms Armstrong: The problem has already been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). It will affect any area where coal has been mined. I wish to speak specifically about how the problem affects my part of Durham.
My constituency is at the western edge of the Durham coalfield. Many of the thousands of old mine workings under the ground are not on maps because they operated centuries ago. Mines in that part of the county closed 20, 25 or 30 years ago, but British Coal has consistently pumped the water from the mine workings, so the water table has not changed. Throughout that period, the county has continued to attract Government grants and has worked with the Government to clean up the environment after the closure of mine workings.
Anyone who now visits Durham county finds a beautiful environment that is attractive to visitors but is also re-attracting much of the wildlife, flora and fauna that existed in the past. We have also cleaned up the rivers. I am told that, at the edge of the coalfields in my constituency there is good salmon and trout fishing because the river water is of good quality.
Apart from anything else, we should be incredibly negligent if we were to fail to guard the public money that has been invested in the area for the purpose of reclamation to provide an environment offering a high quality of life. This has taken work; it has not just happened by accident. What is achieved by way of cleaning up the environment is the result of the commitment of local people working in partnership with the Government and with the European Community.
The work that has been done in Durham is second to none, but there will be a threat—a real threat, not an imagined one—if pumping operations are not continued. British Coal has already shut down some pumps. On at least one occasion, it failed to give even the two weeks' notice that had been promised. Some of the problems caused by water pollution from old mines are already manifesting themselves in the western part of my county. The water table has risen, and some fields are now flooded. As one drives past, one notices the orange muck. The river and some streams on the western edge of the county are affected already. In addition, in my part of the county, there are problems of subsidence. The water authority and the rivers authority put this down to the closure of mines.
This is not an imagined problem, but one which we already have to deal with. With members and officers of Durham county council, I took part in a delegation to the Minister following the publication of the Bill. We sought an assurance that the hon. Gentleman understood the problem and an undertaking that, under the Bill, appropriate measures would be taken to deal with it. I am sorry to say that such measures have not been taken. The assurances that have been given are simply not strong enough to make us confident that the new authority will accept responsibility.
7.15 pm
I understand that the Minister does not want to write an undertaking into the terms of the Bill. That reluctance will give rise to real problems. Recent court judgments make it very clear that assurances given in Parliament by Ministers

are not sufficient in court. I cite a case in a totally different realm—the terms of the contracts of lecturers in colleges of further and higher education. The assurances given by Ministers during the debates on employment legislation were dismissed by the judge, who said that he was guided not by things said in Parliament but by his understanding and interpretation of the law. That is the problem.
Outside experts who have looked into this matter say that assurances given in the House and in Committee by Ministers are simply not sufficient. Their judgment is that, in the event of problems arising and being taken to court, there is nothing in the Bill to make the new Coal Authority responsible in such a way that they could be tackled. I am sure that no hon. Member wants such a situation to arise. No doubt the Minister does not want to see problems that no one is able to tackle. If he wants the new authority to have this capacity, he will have to accept our proposed changes or write in his own.
If changes are not made, much of Ministers' push for privatisation will run into difficulty. It is my view that many private operators would be very cautious about starting business in Durham. People will not have to wait five, 10 or 15 years before problems occur. As I have said, what is going to happen is already visible. We know already the potential extent of the problem and what it may mean. People who are thinking of investing in the area will need to be assured that the Government will cover them. We are asking for assurances on the face of the Bill. We are asking for a commitment to the provision of resources to tackle any problems that arise.
We want to ensure that, whatever happens, the quality of life and the environment of future generations, as well as of those of us who will be around for another few years, will not be destroyed. Many of my hon. Friends have personal experience of, for example, the gases and poisons in mine workings. These will accumulate in water and may become explosive when they reach the surface. In saying that, I am not being fanciful: people who know about these things make the same point.
It is critical that this matter be tackled seriously in the context of the legislation that we are considering. Regardless of the Government's ideological wishes, we cannot afford to have our environment threatened in the way that the Bill, as drafted, threatens it. In saying that, I refer not just to Durham but to other coalfield areas. The adjoining constituencies of Durham, North-West and Bishop Auckland are the first to face the problem. We are beginning to see examples of what the rest of the county and the other coalfields in Britain will encounter. I therefore urge the Minister to realise that, in respect of this matter, he cannot simply give assurances, hoping that they will be observed in the future. The evidence is that courts are not being bound by such assurances. We need actual words in the legislation. I hope that the Minister will reconsider what he said in Committee and indicate that he is prepared to write into the Bill a provision to the effect that any problems arising will very firmly be the responsibility of the new Coal Authority.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House await with great interest the Minister's response to the concerns that have been expressed so far—concerns which are felt equally by the residents of Nottinghamshire and by the people of the other areas that have been mentioned.
When the Bill was first mooted I was asked by constituents in north Nottinghamshire what proposals would be made, under the new arrangements, to deal with mine water pollution. I said that I would be very surprised if arrangements were not spelt out clearly when the Bill came before the House and was considered in Committee. I am indeed surprised that we have reached this stage without being able to give our constituents the assurances that they seek. We shall listen most carefully to such assurances as the Minister can give us during the debate.
The primary cause for concern about mine water stems from the provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991, section 89 of which states that it is not an offence to permit water from an abandoned mine to enter controlled waters. That has created great concern, not least in Durham, whose county council has given us a briefing on the subject.
To switch off the pumps and allow the mines to fill up, and then to discharge polluted water, is a positive act, but it is not illegal or actionable under current law. My amendment would restrict the possibility of widespread environmental decline. It proposes that it should be an offence to allow mine water to escape from any mine in the ownership of British Coal. With the unparalleled number of mines that are closing, there is growing concern about the possible harm from the escape of contaminated water from abandoned mines and thence into the water system.
Reference has been made to the arrangements between British Coal and the National Rivers Authority. Fourteen days' notice of cessation of pumping is minimal, but even that number is not written into the Bill. Once mines have been abandoned, with no responsibility on operators to prevent water from escaping, not only will existing provisions come to an end but an unknown quantity of new hazards is likely to appear. What is required is a holding operation until each closed colliery can be properly assessed and measures taken to prevent polluted water from entering the system.
At the very least, we must ensure that polluted water does not escape or that it is cleaned before its entry into the water system. If neither the operators nor British Coal or the Coal Authority is responsible for this pollution, there is a real fear that the long-term costs of the problem will fall on local people. Local resources will have to be found, in the form of the council tax, to clean up the problem in the very areas suffering the greatest hardship from the closure of coalfields.
This is an important issue; the House looks forward to hearing what reassurances my hon. Friend can give on the subject.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister will have begun by now to get the message—

Mr. Chris Mullin: I doubt it.

Mr. Hughes: —although the hon. Gentleman appears to have lingering suspicions.
Hon. Members have spoken about their local communities and concerns, but we also need to tackle this problem nationally and in the light of the experiences to which I alluded earlier. With the tin mines in Cornwall we have seen what can happen if water leaking from mines into the water system is not controlled: there was a huge

regional panic and many regional resources had to be deployed. In fact, the problem was not adequately dealt with even then—it was too late.
The Minister well knows that there is widespread support inside and outside the House for tightening up the Bill. Local government in particular is determined that there must be a better system—not only the Association of County Councils but local government generally. The Minister has had representations from the Coalfield Communities Campaign and from all the amenity organisations: the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors have all added their voices, saying that something must be done.
As the hon. Members for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) have said, we were greatly helped just today by a briefing given to us by Durham county council, which briefed Members of both Houses and of all parties and which provided us with a comprehensive document which we heard discussed only this morning.
Neither the President of the Board of Trade, on Second Reading, nor Ministers in Committee appeared to honour the obligation that the Government had seemed willing to undertake. In effect, the Government said that they were going to privatise the coal industry and transfer liabilities from British Coal to the Coal Authority. That prompted one question and did not deal with another. Are the current arrangements adequate? They are not. Furthermore, with the transfer of responsibilities, no corresponding duties have been transferred, let alone resources. Such obligations must be placed on people in advance, so that we all know who will be responsible.
The Government have often argued that the polluter should pay—that, they say, is one of the principles in their environmental legislation. It is all very well, provided the polluter can pay and, much more importantly, provided the polluter is given a duty to prevent the sort of incidents that might result in his having to pay. That means imposing duties.
The Minister has before him a whole menu of amendments. New clause 3, for instance, requires that the holder of the licence prevent discharges. The Minister and I attended the same law course and were taught the same things about legal duties. He therefore knows that the duty on a licensee can be written into statute.
New clause 3 includes a duty to continue pumping—a duty that must not be allowed to wither just because that may be in the interests of the Coal Authority or the licensee. In the same way, in County Durham the Coal Board has no interest in continuing pumping because certain mines will never be reopened. The point is not to serve these bodies' interests: it is to serve the wider interest.
New clause 3 also provides that no permission should be given to the holder of a licence to allow mine water to be discharged. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) argued, a method of preventing pollution must be written into the Bill to protect the environment. Certainly that is a general duty, but it is at least a starting point.
Another amendment would extend the obligation, in clause 2, to persons in respect of subsidence to include


damage from mine water. And a general duty should be imposed on the Coal Authority to look after the environment.
As more than one hon. Member has argued, there is also a need to deal with the exemptions provided for by the Water Resources Act 1991—and there are ways of dealing with them, such as the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Newark. However we do it, the point remains the same: to create a criminal offence. As the Minister knows, the Water Resources Act specifically gives exemptions in relation to permitting water from an abandoned mine to enter controlled waters. Another exemption in the same legislation means that the NRA does not have the power to carry out works to prevent such pollution or to recover the costs involved. That, too, needs to be changed in law.
We are left with the obvious need to tighten up the Bill. To be consistent with their environmental principles and their claims about the importance of water quality and consequent environmental duties, the Government cannot resist the new clause. A few minutes ago, I heard the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) say very quietly—unusually for him—from a sedentary position that organisations will need resources. It is impossible to place a duty on someone and then say, "You have got to carry out that duty, even if you do not have the resources." Whether the organisation involved is the National Rivers Authority, the Coal Authority or the local authority does not matter. If an organisation breaches its duty but does not have the resources to prevent pollution, it is nonsense to give it that duty.
Week in, week out we place legislative requirements on people without giving them the resources to carry out the duties. It is too late to hold an inquiry and a departmental inquiry to find out what happened and pour money in after the damage has been done. That is not good enough. The Minister has been warned and I hope that he and the Government will be responsible and will respond to the warnings and the requirement.
7.30 pm
I know that the Government are concerned that if they include in the Bill the fact that a duty will be placed on purchasers, it will frighten off some of those purchasers. We know the score, we are not silly about the matter, but the Government's view is unacceptable. It is no good trying to flog off bits of the coal industry and to make it more saleable without making it responsible.

Mr. Hardy: Will the hon. Gentleman note that the South Yorkshire mines drainage unit, based in my constituency, was set up in the inter-war years by the private mining industry? If the private coal mine owners accepted at that distant time that a responsibility existed, it is reasonable to expect the new private coal mine owners at least to be asked to consider it.

Mr. Hughes: The National Rivers Authority has said to the Government that the present legislative proposals are unacceptable—it said that expressly in relation to Tyne and Wear and also generally. It advanced that argument during the Committee stage of the Bill. It has conducted research and it has done its homework. It realises that the issue is controversial because it might affect the saleability of the coal industry once it is privatised. It is not acceptable, however, to put at risk not only the immediately affected communities but the water network, which could extend

not just locally, but down estuaries to the sea. There is no limit to the damage that could be done. We have a chance to prevent it.
I hope that Ministers will act responsibly. They may say that the amendments are defective. We do not mind if that is their response. There will be time for them to introduce tougher and better amendments. The county councils and the Association of County Councils will help. Plenty of work has been done and there are many people out there who know what they are talking about and can assist. They could even be seconded to the Department for a week on a higher salary. I hope that the Minister will not let the warnings go unheeded. He has a great responsibility.

Sir Cranley Onslow: I apologise to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for not being able to be present to hear him move the new clause. I want to speak in support of what has been said about the importance of ensuring that pollution from abandoned mines does not enter the rivers, rendering them useless for any environmental purpose and making them, almost literally, a blot on the landscape.
I declare an interest. I am a council member of the Anglers' Co-operative Association, which has a reputation for vigorously prosecuting water polluters. It recently took the British Coal to court in south Wales over a pollution case, which is still sub judice, so I shall make no further reference to it. It is important that the Minister should respond to the spirit of what has been said in the debate.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House share a desire to see our countryside improved and not to let it deteriorate. In that context, nothing is more important than keeping our rivers pure so that everyone can enjoy them, not least anglers. Although I have not had the opportunity to fish in the rivers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), I envy those who have, because I know what a reputation they have gained and how much they have improved.
My hon. Friend the Minister does not need me to remind him that section 141 of the Water Resources Act 1991 requires the National Rivers Authority to maintain, improve and develop fisheries throughout the country. I do not see how it will be easy for it do that if it is faced with the problem of polluted water from abandoned coal mines flooding into water courses.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is sympathetic to the arguments that have been advanced. On behalf of anglers and anyone else who enjoys the countryside, I hope that he will ensure that we have an effective defence against pollution.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: This issue has been around for a long time and it is astonishing that it has not been dealt with before. As has already been said, the present legal position is unclear. It is one of the problems about which there appears to be some buck-passing between British Coal and the National Rivers Authority and between their respective political masters, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment. The Bill will not improve matters, but will make them worse.
The key to the issue is that we are talking about big money and nobody wants to pick up the responsibilities and liabilities. We should remember that at Wheal Jane colliery the National Rivers Authority has worked hard to clear up a real mess. The cost in grant aid to the


Government has been £8 million—that is the scale of money about which we are talking. Given that scale of money, it is not surprising that British Coal and the NRA, so I am reliably told, are talking to each other through their lawyers because they are frightened of committing themselves and picking up any liabilities.
The issue affects the whole country. It affects the Nottinghamshire coalfield, which still operates and still has a future, I hope, in the privatised industry. It has recently been announced that the Annersley Bentinck colliery is to close. It pumps out mine water from the east of the Derbyshire coalfield and the west of the Nottinghamshire coalfield. That water is treated on the site of Annersley Bentinck colliery and is taken by pipeline some 10 miles to be discharged into the River Trent. Only the volume of water in the River Trent can deal with that level of pollution.
What will happen when the pumps are turned off at Annersley Bentinck colliery? It is all very well for the Minister to say that there is a memorandum of understanding between British Coal and the National Rivers Authority. That memorandum is not backed by law; it is a short-term palliative. It requires British Coal to give the NRA only 14 days' notice. That is not good enough. There will be real problems if the issue is not dealt with in the Bill.
It is clear that mine water discharge not only discolours the water by introducing heavy metals like iron, but has a knock-on effect on water companies. Mine water is pumped into rivers. Some of those rivers are associated with sewage works. Many of those sewage works only just meet emission standards. If there is a drop in water volume—and there will be if the pumping stops—it is clear that a great deal of remedial work will need to be carried out at those sewage works to meet environmental standards. The cost of that will be immense. The Minister should consult his colleagues to find out the water companies' estimates for that remedial work.
We will pay for that remedial work through our water and sewerage costs. We shall pay in other ways because polluted water will inevitably lead to the loss of plant life and wildlife in streams in Nottinghamshire and other coalfield communities. Some 80 per cent. of the drinking water in Nottinghamshire is pumped from the underlying aquifer, the bunter sandstone. That aquifer is fissile—it has been affected by mining subsidence.
There is a real possibility of discharged polluted mine water penetrating the bunter sandstone. The Government should listen to good professional advice. The British Geological Survey, based at Keyworth in Nottinghamshire, put forward a proposition that has great merit: that no pumping at collieries should be switched off until a full geological survey of the effects of ceasing pumping has been undertaken.
We should remember that the quality of Nottinghamshire water has attracted inward investment. The Toray factory at Mansfield came to Nottinghamshire specifically because it required high-quality water to treat its textiles. It drilled a new well in Mansfield to provide that water.
We need and deserve new investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) said, one of the ways to attract new investment

into coalfield communities is to portray an attractive and forward-looking environment. The proposals in the Bill do nothing to secure that.
The new clause and the amendment secure the future; they tackle the problems. The Minister told us in Committee that he was aware of, and sympathised with, the problems. He told us that at the end of the day the Coal Authority would underwrite the Bill. If that is the case and his understanding of it, I hope that he will give us some comfort and say clearly—if not tonight, very soon—that he will introduce into the Bill provisions to protect our future environment.
People in coalfield communities are used to dirt and discharge, but they also want the benefits of the other side of the coin. People who work in that environment respect the countryside; they want better for their children than they had for themselves. The issue must be tackled, and I hope that the Minister will listen to the views from all parts of the House.

Mr. Jim Lester: It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) in his place. I hope that his leg is improving and that it has not caused him too much pain to take part in the debate; his presence is a measure of his concern.

Mr. Skinner: He will last longer than Gazza.

Mr. Lester: He is not under as much strain as Gazza who is trying to play for England.
I support my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and all those who have already spoken.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested an integrated approach, and the abstract concerns are important. In my constituency there was a mine overflow. For some reason, a mistake was made at Moorgreen pit and the overflow of water came gushing down a narrow ditch into a broader brook and flooded a whole row of houses. I vividly remember being called to the emergency and seeing the terrible problems that the people in those homes suffered.
We are all used to seeing pictures on television of people in wellingtons plodding around two or three feet of water in their homes. In this case, it was two or three feet of black slurry which could not be washed out or wished away. It was a serious emergency. If it had not been for the council being able to mobilise a great deal of help to stop it getting worse, the flooding would have extended to many more houses. Much work was required to ensure that it would never happen again.
It is one thing to talk in abstract; it is another to see the consequences of an overflow and to recognise how important it is we get it right. Amendment No. 7, which seeks to remove the exception, is one way forward. I also follow what the hon. Member for Sherwood said about the catchment area and the importance of clean water.
Hardy Hansons brewery in my constituency has been brewing beer for 150 years. One reason why it is there is the quality of the water. Over the years, it has sought to protect the catchment area whence it gets its water, as the well that serves the brewery is important to the quality of the beer. Any concern of Hardy Hansons would be considerable, especially as there are many old mine workings in the area and no one has specific responsibility to ensure that an overflow could not pollute that catchment area.
It is important that my hon. Friend the Minister listens carefully to all that has been said. We need specific assurances on responsibility and financing, which cannot be left in limbo or addressed in a vague way. If the composite of new clauses and amendments is not the right and total answer for the Department, it behoves Ministers to introduce clauses to deal with the issue to the satisfaction of hon. Members on both sides who share this concern.

Mr. Mullin: First, let me welcome the new clause and the amendments. Most of us here tonight have been trying to draw the attention of the DTI and the Department of the Environment to the problem for some time. I had an Adjournment debate on the subject last July.
I find it incredible that the Bill should be published in the face of the enormous amount of advice that has been received from all quarters and from people of all political persuasions and should contain no explicit mention of responsibility for the consequences of mine water pollution.
Our attention in the Durham coalfield was first drawn to the matter when Easington council, which played a very helpful role in exposing the likely consequences, commissioned a report from Dr. Paul Younger, a lecturer in water resources at Newcastle university. He set out graphically what the consequences would be for the River Wear, which is one of the most beautiful rivers in the country and flows through Sunderland, if the pumps were switched off. The water table would rise; the long-term effect would be catastrophic; the flora and fauna of the River Wear, part of which runs through National Trust woodlands, would be devastated; the water supply to the city of Sunderland would be imperilled; wildlife would be endangered, as would livestock grazing near the river; use of the river by human beings for sports purposes would probably have to be restricted to wet weather; and there was a danger that parts of the Durham and Sunderland coastline, which has fine and well-used beaches would be contaminated.
The Minister has received warnings; hon. Members from both sides have agreed that the Bill needs to make it quite clear where the responsibility will lie. No quantity of assurances from this or any other Minister will get round the fundamental problem that the Bill provides for no responsibility when things go wrong. Things are already beginning to go wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) has mentioned. We can already see the consequences in some places.
Nothing in the behaviour of British Coal until now suggests that we need have any confidence in its assurances. Such concessions as have been obtained have been wrung out of British Coal by the National Rivers Authority. It has delayed, it has not provided information that it should have provided and at one stage it ridiculed the assertions by Dr. Younger, whom I quoted a moment ago.
British Coal has now signed the memorandum of understanding which provides for just 14 days' notice before the pumps are switched off. The memorandum is useless for any other purpose except that it gives 14 days to take legal action or perhaps to obtain an injunction. As everyone knows, the law is so unclear that no one can be confident of the outcome of legal action.
Elsewhere, British Coal has walked away from its responsibilities. The waters of Girvan, in Ayrshire, were polluted in the 1970s, and mine water seriously polluted the River Ore in Fife. Wheal Jane, in Cornwall, has also been mentioned; that, of course, is a tin mine.
The Minister has no excuse for not knowing about those problems. He has been warned by people of all persuasions: as I discovered this afternoon, he has even been warned by the National Rivers Authority. I should like to hear from him in that regard. I was a member of the Standing Committee considering the Water Bill, which was enacted in 1989, and I heard all the assurances about how effective the NRA would be. I understand that the authority—chaired by a former Tory Cabinet Minister, and set up by the present Government—has written to the Department of the Environment, saying that something must be written into the Bill to clarify the position. Is that so?
I appreciate that the Minister does not come from that Department, but no doubt it is represented here tonight. What response has been given to the NRA? It is incredible that a body set up by the Government specifically to advise on what should be done about this kind of pollution is being ignored.
Many of my constituents are very angry. We can all see the problem coming. Durham is one of the places that will be affected at an early stage; it is a world heritage site. Why are we standing by and allowing this to happen, when the solutions are reasonably obvious?

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The River Wear runs through the centre of my constituency, which my hon. Friend visits regularly. Literally hundreds of people are now terrified of what will happen to the river in the event of pollution. I know that my hon. Friend often walks along its banks; he will be aware that pollution would devastate the city of Durham. He will also be aware that hundreds of thousands of people visit Durham each year: it is now one of the most sought-after tourist spots in the north of England.
Mine water pollution would have a catastrophic effect throughout the city. Why in the name of heaven does the Minister not take the advice that he has received from virtually every expert? He has been told that the problem will arise, but he is taking no action. Even at meetings that I have attended, he has failed to respond to the genuine fears of my constituents.

Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend has the privilege of representing the most beautiful city in England. As he says, the consequences for his constituency will be worse even than the consequences for the city of Sunderland.
Real anger is felt about the lack of action. The problem has been repeatedly drawn to the attention of the Minister's Department, and other Departments; the National Rivers Authority is attempting to draw it to the Minister's attention. I particularly want to hear what response his Department, or the Department of the Environment, has given to the NRA.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for his kind words at the beginning of this debate.
The issue involved in the new clause and amendments is clear: British Coal, or any other pit owner, is effectively responsible only for pollution from working mines. Once a mine has been abandoned, the responsibility ceases. The


issue was examined in detail in March 1992 by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which I still have the proud honour to chair; and, on 10 February 1993, I presented a ten-minute Bill to examine it further.
The environmental aspect is very simple. During mining operations, the mineral pyrite, or iron sulphide—which is often found in the coal seam—is exposed. When exposed to air and water, pyrite is oxidised into ferrous sulphate and sulphuric acid, a process which may be catalysed by the presence of chemo-synthetic bacteria.
The effects of that process were clearly spelt out in the debate in February last year, and many hon. Members have made the same point this evening. Let me say merely that the oxidisation of those metals ruins the spawning gravels for breeding fish, and leaves only some species of alga to grow into thick blankets of unpleasant-looking cover. That affects the overall eco-system of flora and fauna, especially bird species. Sometimes the water is also contaminated by traces of cadmium, zinc and other heavy metals. Such invisible pollution has far more serious implications for the food chain.
I congratulate the Welsh Office on commissioning a detailed study of the problem from the NRA. The study, published last Wednesday, is entitled "A Survey of Ferruginous Minewater Impacts in the Welsh Coalfields". It is extremely interesting: it examines two stages of a scientific analysis of the problem. In stage one, the NRA in the Welsh region located 90 discharges in Wales, and found that 59.4 km of river had been affected by ferruginous discharges; an area measuring 220,000 sq miles had been affected by iron hydroxide deposition.
In stage two, the NRA examined 33 of the top-rank discharges—those with the greatest environmental impact—selecting them with chemical, biological and fisheries impact assessments. That analysis is extremely interesting, but I wish to concentrate on a specific river identified by the NRA as the worst in Wales, in terms of biological impact. It clearly illustrates the possible effects of such discharges on life in a Welsh river polluted by an operator who has then walked away—in this instance, British Coal.
I am sure that the Minister has read the NRA survey with his customary diligence. I should be grateful if he would put his mind to considering how he intends to clean up the site identified by the NRA, and tells us in his reply. On page 19, the survey states:
The site at which the greatest environmental impact occurred was below the discharge from Morlais colliery, Llangennech, Llanelli"—
in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). That refers to the drainage of mine waters from beneath old coal workings in my constituency, particularly at the various coal measures on the eastern side of the Burry estuary.
The survey states:
'The minewater was having a dramatic impact upon the invertebrate fauna … The degree of deposition of iron hydroxide at the site was very high and the downstream iron concentration (max. 26.42 mg/l) was the highest of the 33 sites studied and well in excess of the environmental quality standard … for total iron. Such a high iron loading had a highly deleterious impact upon the invertebrate fauna causing a complete loss of 14 families and a reduction of 3 families at the site immediately downstream of the discharge …
The ferruginous deposits impacted upon a wide range of families some of which are recognised as tolerant of other forms of pollution".

I use that quotation because the NRA clearly showed that it is the worst polluted river in Wales in terms of the chemical, biological and other elements that it examined in detail. I want to know what provision in the Bill will help to clean up the mess.
8 pm
On 16 December last year, in my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Wales to ask him for his comments on the Bill. In his reply of 12 January this year, he wrote:
On the matter of water pollution from abandoned mines, we will ensure that both the historic and current liabilities of British Coal will continue to be discharged following privatisation. Those liabilities not transferred to mining operators will be discharged by the public sector. We have also announced our intention to review the legislative framework relating to water pollution from abandoned mines of all kinds. These matters are currently under careful consideration. 
I am interested in eliciting from the Minister some form of assurance that the problems highlighted by hon. Members of all parties will not be avoided but will be dealt with.
I conclude by drawing attention to what the Royal Commission on environmental pollution made clear in its 16th report published in 1992. It said:
where the owners of the site are unwilling or unable to carry out work to reduce the risk of pollution, the authorities should seek from the Government the support and necessary funds to have the work carried out".
Will the Minister accept the amendments? It would be a welcome change if he were to do so, but, if he cannot, will he at least give a more substantial assurance than merely saying that reed-bed technology is being examined and that that is the limit of the further consideration that the Government are giving to the issue?
The problem exists and it will not go away. I very much hope that the Minister will give an answer that is a little more comprehensive than that of the Secretary of State for Wales who said that the issue was still under consideration. Has that consideration now finished? If so, what provision is to be added to the Bill? If the Minister is not prepared to give us the assurance that we seek, we shall have to hope that it will be added in another place.

Mr. Skinner: All the hon. Members who have spoken this evening have said that some form of words should be added to the Bill to relieve the problems that will ensue in every area where there are coalfields and where there are, in any case, already a lot of problems.
The problem of mine water pollution is not new. It just so happens that there has been a massive closure programme, especially in the past 10 years. 'There were 170 pits 10 years ago, and there are now about 17. In many cases, pits have had to take over the pumping that was done by pits that have been closed. The problem became chronic with the result that, at one pit in my area, it is costing £5,000 per week per pump to pump out the water that has gathered as a result of the closure of the adjacent seven or eight pits. That has been the problem in Durham and in every coalfield in Britain.
Because of the massive closure programme, the problem has now become too big to handle. The Government are simply standing aside, believing that as no one has bothered much about the problem until now they can shunt off the coal industry—or the small number of remaining pits—to the Coal Authority. They think that they can heave a sigh of relief and, as happened with the establishment of the Benefits Agency and the rest of the quangos, then tell Members of Parliament, "It is nowt to do


with us." The matter will be left to the National Rivers Authority and the local authorities. The poor old local authorities, which are mainly Labour controlled, will be told by a succession of Ministers that they must find the ways and means to resolve the problem, but without adequate money or standard spending assessment grants.
Only a weeks ago—we are still talking about it—the Government found about £230 million for the Pergau dam. It is not as if the Government cannot find the money. We are probably talking about a much smaller sum than that for the pits, but, because it suited the Government to line the pockets of their friends operating in Malaysia, they came up with the money there. The Government were worried not about jobs but about making money, so they were able to find the necessary brass. We want no excuses from the Government that they cannot find the necessary money because this is not a minor issue. The Government talk about Rio, the environment and all the rest of it, but this is a classic example of the Government's having been found out. They make abstract generalisations about saving the environment, but they do absolutely nothing at all.
The Minister has a duty to find a form of words to enable local authorities and people who live in the communities to provide for proper water in their areas. One of the things that antagonise people in the coalfield constituencies is that for a century or more—in Durham, it goes back for many centuries—people have had to put up with all the muck associated with pits. They have had to put up with pit tips and water running off them. Everything associated with coalfields has been muck and mess. Now that the pits have closed, many people are asking why they cannot have a bit of greenery and some clean water. That is the anger that my hon. Friends are expressing and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are no exception: you cannot participate in the debate, but you know and understand the problem.
Pits have been closed and opencast mining has taken place, resulting in great big holes and water running all over the place. It has now become such a big problem that no one knows how to tackle it. What is the water like? It has been described as black and oily, but we used to call it ochre water. I do not know whether it was the same in Nottingham, but I see my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) nodding. Nothing could live in it, but we used to mess about in it when we were kids and we got a dear old belter for doing so—

Mr. Eggar: Those were the days.

Mr. Skinner: They were indeed the days. They were not golden days, but they were the days when my father worked two or three days a week if he was lucky. The hon. Gentleman who masquerades as a Minister yearns for those conditions to come back and the Government are working towards it. They have already chucked 4 million people out of work and they would like to see people on three and three. They would achieve it after privatisation if they were to remain in office, but they are being run by a tinpot wimp who does not know whether he is on this earth or fuller's earth. We shall soon be seeing the back of the Prime Minister and then we shall get around to dealing with the water problems in the coalfields. I know that I took a long, circuitous route in making that point, but the Minister provoked me.

Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): You are easily provoked.

Mr. Skinner: I am easily provoked when it is all about workers. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) does not have to put up with such problems.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman return to the new clause before the House?

Mr. Skinner: We are talking about dirty water. We are talking about a dirty, rotten, lousy Government and the two things go together. One cannot draw a line between them. The Government can find money for their rich friends—£50 billion in tax cuts—but they cannot find money to resolve the problem of mine water. What is that water like? It has been described as black and oily.
When I worked down Glapwell colliery, the water was 800 yards deep in parts and it came off the seam. The miners who worked on the coal face did not wear shirts; they had only knee pads, shorts and boots. That water used to come out of the strata. I used to take the miners to the social security tribunal—this is water that we are discussing—where cases were carried to the extent that it was agreed that the water was so full of chemicals that it caused ulcers on the miners' backs and it was made a prescribed industrial disease.
That water permeates the water courses, it travels down the valleys in Wales and everywhere else and finishes up in drinking water. The Government would not tolerate that kind of water if it was anywhere near Buckingham palace. They would resolve the problem there. But the water happens to be in the coalfields where the Tories do not care. They know that there, by and large, with rare exceptions, people support the Labour party.
I want to draw the Ministers' attention to that problem and I want some answers. He sits there grinning like a Cheshire cat. Let us sort out the problem. Some people have said that because of the closure of the pits, the water courses have risen substantially. I believe that that is true in Bolsover.

Mr. Peter Luff: indicated dissent.

Mr. Skinner: What is up with the hon. Gentleman? Has he got St. Vitus's dance? He is another one who has several jobs and is not satisfied with living on £30,000 a year as a Member of Parliament. He lines his pockets on the side. Perhaps his constituents would like to hear about that as well.
In the Bolsover area, several pits are closed—

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: You are a bully.

Mr. Skinner: What's up, fatso?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough of such talk from both sides of the House. Let us get back to new clause 3.

Mr. Skinner: Bring them to order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that that was enough from both sides of the House.

Mr. Skinner: In the Bolsover area, several pits have shut over the past several years and a landslip has occurred—like the Scarborough hotel which slid down the pit cliff. I hope that the Minister is listening because it affects many constituents of mine. There are watercourses on the hillside. The neighbouring pits have been shut and, more recently, Bolsover colliery has been shut. So hardly any


pumping takes place at all, with the result that the hillside has begun to fall away. Already six houses have been demolished, with the prospect of up to 80 more being in jeopardy. When the Scarborough hotel fell down the cliff, money was found under the Coast Protection Act 1949, but because Bolsover is not near the coast the Government do not want to know.
I ask the Minister again to consult his friends at the Department of the Environment to ensure that the people in that area receive grants to resolve the problem on that hillside. As surely as night follows day, that problem is due to the rising water levels in the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has heard about the problem. Six properties in my constituency have already been demolished and the people do not know which way to turn. We need £1.5 million from the Government to ensure that we can put the hillside right. If the Minister cannot find that money in the Bill, he should tell his colleagues at the Department of the Environment to deal with the matter.
8.15 pm
Privatisation is about replacing a little public intervention—although the Coal Board never practised it properly—planning and organisation with market chaos. Nobody will care about anything. When people are striving to make money without any concern for the community, obviously the water will not be taken care of and the environment in general will be discarded because people cannot make profit out of such things.
The Government want to get rid of the problem by just forgetting all about it. If they can just get through the debate and manage to survive the passage of the Bill in this House and in the other place, the local authorities will be saddled with the problem. We are demanding money from the Minister. The debate amounts to a political will and the provision of money. That would enable those who have to deal with the problem to manage effectively, without having to deal with it themselves and without being deprived of the opportunity to receive proper grants through the Bill.

Mr. Dickens: The debate about water flowing through disused mines gives me an opportunity, in response to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), to tell one or two home truths to the House of Commons. First—

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Member has just come into the House.

Mr. Dickens: I was in earlier, my dear. First, let us consider why we are in this position and why coal mines have closed. The hon. Member for Bolsover laid the issue square on the shoulders of the Government, but to my mind that is not correct. I ask hon. Members to cast their minds back to the year-long miners' strike when—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already had to draw the attention of the House and of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to the fact that we are discussing new clause 3 and not the miners' strike of 1984.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the hon. Gentleman speaks, may I point out that he has not been here for most of the debate? He has not apologised to the House for the fact that he has not been present. Will you ensure that if he trespasses again he does

not abuse the time of the House when other hon. Members have been present throughout and want to make specific points and not widen the debate out to totally different issues?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member may safely leave that to the Chair.

Mr. Dickens: To put the record straight, I spent about an hour at the beginning of the debate sitting here, while the other Deputy Speaker was in the Chair. To say that I have not been here during the debate is a falsehood. I have been to have a meal and I have returned.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Was is it a good meal?

Mr. Dickens: It was a good meal, but the debate is no better than it was when I left.

Mr. Robert Litherland: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has not just returned from having a meal; I saw him asleep in the Library.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Both sides of the House must settle down and debate new clause 3. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get to the new clause.

Mr. Dickens: New clause 3 relates to flooding water in the coal mines and the sort of action that the Government are proposing, either financially or in kind, to deal with the problem and to place an obligation to be fulfilled by the people purchasing the mines. I know exactly what the debate is about and I intend to speak to it.
First, it is important to explain to the House why we are in this position. It is about continuity of supply. The lights have to be kept burning. Industry in an industrial nation must have—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair does not want to hear anything about the past. I repeat that we are debating new clause 3 and I must tell the hon. Gentleman to debate that clause.

Mr. Dickens: With respect, you allowed the hon. Member for Bolsover—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is responsible for the Chair's actions. I have allowed the hon. Member for Bolsover and any other hon. Member to debate within the bounds of new clause 3. Apart from the time I pulled him up, the hon. Member for Bolsover was quite in order. Once again, I ask the hon. Gentleman to address new clause 3. He should get on with it.

Mr. Dickens: I understand that you represent Pontefract, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that you have always taken a great interest in the coal mining industry. I say that sincerely, because I served with you on the Select Committee and you always put the details, desires and interests of the coal mining industry first and foremost, so I know about your sincere views on the subject.
I had hoped to explain the reasons for the mess that we are in today, but since I must concede to the Chair and respect what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall move on and simply say that it is not the Government's fault that we are in our present position. The mines closed because of circumstances in the past that were beyond the


Government's doing. There must be continuity of supply, so it was unfair, unjust and incorrect of the hon. Member for Bolsover to blame our Minister for the problem.
I am afraid that because of the restrictions placed on me this evening I cannot extend my speech any longer.

Mr. Clapham: I should like to trespass on the ground that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) opened, but I have watched the Minister in Committee and I know that he can look after himself.
The new clause, and amendments Nos. 41, 14 and 55, are essential if we are to avoid widespread pollution. Using an example from my constituency, I shall explain to the House what may happen unless the Government are prepared to accept that the Bill must allocate responsibility.
The River Don begins its flow in the Pennines, in my constituency. It flows swiftly towards Penistone and then meanders through the beautiful countryside towards Barnsley, making a turn towards Sheffield. To the west of the A628—the Manchester road—at Millhouse Green, Bullhouse colliery closed in 1961 or 1962. Because it was privately owned, British Coal has denied any responsibility for it.
Just after the colliery closed, the mine water from the old pit started to seep into the River Don, and it has now been running into the Don at quite a pace for several years. For about four miles from the spot where the water from the Bullhouse pit enters it, the River Don is totally polluted; it is an orange colour due to the iron salts in the water. There are no fish, no flora and no fauna—or at any rate, the flora and fauna are greatly deterred by the polluted water. Yet west of the point where the polluted water joins it the Don is an A-grade river whose waters are coveted by the local angling association. We have been pressing for many years to try to get something done about the pollution.
Because the mine was private, British Coal denies any responsibility. We have been corresponding for a year with the National Rivers Authority, but that body says that it does not have the money to deal with the problem. I have also corresponded with the Minister, as well as with the Department of the Environment, to try to persuade them to explore the possibility of making grants available, perhaps through the European Community, to give us the opportunity to start to clear up the river.
That example shows clearly what can happen if no responsibility is laid on the authority or some other body to which we can turn to ensure that a cleaning-up job can be started if an area becomes polluted. It is therefore clear that the new clause and the amendments must be accepted, so if the Government are not prepared to make the required changes I ask Conservative Back Benchers to support the Opposition.

Mr. Peter Hain: I shall be as brief as I can, but I must draw the attention of the House to the increasing pollution of the Neath waterways by mining effluent. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) has investigated the matter in detail through the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, and we are most grateful for what he has done.
The pollution was first identified at the village of Tonmawr, in the River Pelenna, which has suffered increasing pollution and is now a dirty orange-brown colour; it is at present the subject of a five-year, £1 million-plus programme whose intention is to try to clean

it up. The significant aspect of that is that the burden falls not on British Coal or on previous mine owners—the mines were private before nationalisation—but directly on the taxpayer, through the Welsh Office and West Glamorgan county council.
The River Pelenna is not the only heavily polluted waterway; the Neath river, the Neath canal and the River Dulais are all increasingly polluted with mining effluents. Those three waterways are the subject of an interesting story that illustrates the nature of a problem that the Government seem unwilling to recognise, or at least unwilling to concede openly.
When discoloration and pollution started to appear in the Neath canal and the Neath river, it was first thought that it came from the Ynysarwed mine, which closed in 1938 and which had worked the No. 2 Rhondda coal seam. That mine had been discharging a little water for several years, but it had not constituted any threat until spring 1993, when the National Rivers Authority first noticed an increasing discharge from the mine. There was then a sudden but steady increase.
On further investigation, it was realised that the water was coming not from Ynysarwed but from Blaenant colliery, which closed in 1991. How was that happening? Although both the collieries had worked the No. 2 Rhondda coal seam, they were separated. But as the ground water rose in the Blaenant colliery, it started to seep through a barrier of at least 90 m of coal into Ynysarwed, and so to discharge straight into the Neath canal and the Neath river.
I seek to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the problem is complex, and that unless it is tackled comprehensively we shall not get to grips with it. The Minister is nodding; I am grateful for that, and I look forward with anticipation to his reply.
Pumping has now ceased in the Blaenant colliery. When pumping was occurring it artificially depressed the groundwater level there, but when it stopped the water rose to a sufficient height to start entering Ynysarwed and coming through the rock. The position is further complicated by the fact that the mine water is still rising in Blaenant. The National Rivers Authority says that it is increasingly seeping into the River Dulais.
Partly as a result of NRA pressure, Blaenant drift was sealed up in December 1993, but that in turn forced water up the nearby Cefn Coed shaft, where the two mines were linked. We are now told that the water has reached about 30 m from the top of Cefn Coed, which is one of the deepest shafts in Britain, and it is rising at the rate of half a metre a week. We seal up one apparent cause of a problem and the water seeps out elsewhere.
The same thing is occurring all over the Neath constituency. The Neath canal has now been declared ecologically dead below the level of Resolven, near Neath. There are intense concentrations of dissolved iron and oxidised iron; there is settlement of iron oxides. Fish have had to be recovered and relocated and are in very poor condition. The canal overflows into the River Neath at several points, helping to form deposits of iron hydroxide on the river gravels and causing red discoloration. It has also been blinding the gravels, which has affected the spawning areas, resulting in their destruction. As a result, salmon that spawns in the River Neath is being threatened and in some cases destroyed. Similar problems are affecting the River Dulais, which is also a salmon river. The recent discharges in the river bed at Blaenant are also


causing iron oxide of the river gravels and affecting the whole of the river for 3 km downstream from Blaenant, which is also affecting salmon spawning.
8.30 pm
The problem has an effect on tourism. The upper Dulais falls, which have been regenerated over the past few years with an impressive project—it is a major tourist attraction attracting some 30,000 visitors a year—is affected. A fish pass is embedded in the new project. Salmon are coming up the River Dulais, but they are meeting the pollution from above.
The point of that description is that when a mining area starts to be affected by increasing neglect—as it will be over the years as the problem continues to grow—pumping stops, the water level rises and water seeps all over the place. Elderly residents have told me how the Neath river used to be black in the old days when the mines on each side of it were working—except during holiday periods when local children used to swim in it. That was a relatively benign form of pollution through coal. The river now has a deep orange-brown toxic form of pollution which is threatening fish and the environment. It will increasingly threaten the health of local residents as the pollution seeps into local water supplies, and it will increasingly threaten tourism.
I am not talking about an isolated problem. Across Wales, the National Rivers Authority has identified 90 sites that are heavily polluted with mine water effluent. We face an ecological nightmare in south Wales with pumping stopping, the Government abandoning their responsibilities and with pollution increasing throughout the area.
In Committee, the Government showed a cavalier attitude to the problem; regrettably, I anticipate the same attitude from the Minister shortly. Effectively, the Bill is a charter for passing the buck between mine owners, old mines and the National Rivers Authority. Neath borough council, West Glamorgan county council and other authorities believe that the protection allegedly offered in the Bill is totally inadequate. That is why new clause 3 is absolutely essential. If the House does not carry it tonight, I hope that at least it will be carried in the House of Lords.

Mr. Jack Thompson: It is interesting that new clause 3 has been supported by every speaker except one—the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), whose contribution could be described as neutral at best. I have spent almost as much time listening to the debate as I spent working in the mining industry looking after mine water. Mine water is the topic which we are debating, although apparently the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth was not aware of that.
I listened carefully to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) about the situation in his constituency and what was applicable in Wales. We must remember that the mines that were worked on each side of the Pennine chain through Northumberland, Durham, Yorkshire and Lancashire discharged water. The mines then closed and the water accumulated there. The water came down into the lower areas and there are problems on the coast, certainly in Northumberland and Durham. As my hon. Friend said, the problem goes right through.
Having had some experience of dealing with mine water for a number of years as an engineer in the industry, I

understand the extent of the problem. The mine in which I worked pumped out 4 tonnes of water for every tonne of coal. That was the scale of the problem. Of course, there were problems other than mine water being discharged from the mines. A mine in my constituency that closed in 1966 worked coal reserves under the North sea. The mine closed, but pumps in the shaft still pump sea water. We have the same problem in the coastal areas of Durham and Northumberland; we must now pump out sea water to control the problem. Once the pumping system stops, the water accumulates.
I shall make a final comment that is relevant to the debate. There is an historic precedent for this problem. I am old enough to remember that when the mines were nationalised in 1947 the National Coal Board took over the problem of spoil heaps. The board came to the Government for support and, happily, Governments throughout the years have provided financial support to get rid of the spoil heaps. The spoil heaps were created by private coal owners before the mines were nationalised, and they did not spend one penny on dealing with the problem. The National Coal Board, British Coal and successive Governments have had to deal with the problem, and local authorities, taxpayers and ratepayers have paid for it.

Mr. Giles Radice: We have all had the benefit of the brilliant briefing on the general problem given to us by Durham county council. May I illustrate the problem in terms of my constituency? We have a first-class new cricket ground at Durham. If the weir in front of the ground is polluted, it will not be a good advertisement for all that has happened. In addition, we have the Lumley waterworks, which draws from the river and supplies clean drinking water to Sunderland. If that is polluted, it will cost £24 million to replace. Does my hon. Friend agree that that figure alone makes the case for the amendment?

Mr. Thompson: I certainly agree. I am sure that when players at the Durham cricket club put a ball into the weir, they will be lucky if they get it back again.
I was making a point about spoil heaps. Over the years, major spoil heaps were created by the private coal industry before it was nationalised. The nationalised industry had to cope with the problem, although I accept immediately that it has had Government support over the years since 1947. The spoil heaps have now been dealt with, certainly in my area.
If the problem of spoil heaps is not dealt with properly now, we shall have a similar problem with mine water 10 or 15 years from now. The Government should deal with the problem now. If they do not, it will remain and 10 years from now hon. Members will be spending hours in the Chamber trying to find a way of dealing with it. New clause 3 would provide an opportunity to deal with the problem now, and it should be accepted on that basis.

Mr. Eggar: Understandably, we have had a lengthy and good debate. I was delighted to see the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his feet again.
The theme of speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House is that there is genuine concern about the Durham coalfield, the south Wales coalfield, Nottinghamshire and elsewhere. It may help the House if I briefly try to allay some concerns which I think are completely ill founded. There are other concerns, which I shall discuss later.
The first concern, which seems to have been put across by Durham county council—it was repeated by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong)—is that the Bill will in some way weaken the environmental controls. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) also went down that route. That simply is not the case. The Bill makes it absolutely clear—it is all there in clause 7(3)—that the environmental obligations that currently rest with British Coal under separate environmental legislation are to be passed on to the Coal Authority unless and until separate licences are given to private sector operators. Therefore, the environmental legislation follows through from British Coal to either the Coal Authority or private sector operators. I thought that we had got that basic fact across to those who are genuinely concerned about environmental regulation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Eggar: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I am keen to try to reply in detail to the points that have been made by other hon. Members. It would be for the convenience of the House if I did so as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Hughes: I do not think that the Durham document seeks to say that there has been a weakening. Will the Minister address specifically the proposal on page 7 of the document, which relates to precisely the clause of the Bill to which he is referring? The Minister will see that the left-hand column refers to an amendment that would add liabilities, including environmental liabilities, in relation to abandoned coal mines.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman abuses the right of intervention. I was going on to develop the arguments clearly with respect to that question. If the hon. Gentleman lets me continue, I shall seek to reassure him.
The obligations in terms of responding to existing environmental law and regulations relate under the contents of the Bill either to the Coal Authority or to private sector licensees. It is fundamental to the construction of the Bill both with regard to both safety and environmental obligations that we do not seek in any way to duplicate or mix up the role of the environmental regulatory organisation on one hand or the responsibility for safety on the other. It is a theme of the Bill that the National Rivers Authority remains responsible for environmental regulation.
That is why I must say to the House that I simply do not accept the logic behind new clause 3, or amendments Nos. 41, 55 and 14. They blur the structure which says that there should be an external environmental regulator. The concerns of my hon. Friends and of a number of Opposition Members—particularly the hon. Member for Sunderland, South—are whether the environmental regulations as laid out in the Water Resources Act 1991 are adequate for the future.
When people talk about the need to tighten the environmental rules and regulations, they are really addressing the perceived adequacy or otherwise of section 89(3) of the Water Resources Act. The debate is about that section, which provides that a person does not commit an offence by reason only of permitting water from an abandoned mine to enter controlled waters.
The legislation is there in that form because when the Bill was introduced and the Act debated it was felt to be unreasonable to place an absolute obligation in respect of

environmental damage on a landowner who may never have been responsible for mining at all and who may have bought the land without being aware that it was undermined.
Much to my surprise, I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain); I hope that I shall not ruin his reputation by doing so. The hon. Gentleman recognised how complicated the whole problem is because water flows are not fully understood. That is also true in Durham. It is not a simple matter of saying that there is an absolute obligation on a landowner because he may not in fact have any real responsibility for causing the environmental damage in the first place.
8.45pm
It is precisely because of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members, and because of a more general concern about the whole statutory position with regard to contaminated land, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is currently carrying out a review of the legislative framework of water pollution in general. My right hon. Friend is conducting that review in tandem with a broader review of contaminated land and liabilities. It is obvious that the review must be careful. My right hon. Friend has asked for consultation, and responses are requested by 3 May. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside announced only two weeks ago that he expected the review to be completed later this year.
In the meantime, the Government will make sure that all British Coal's current liabilities continue to be discharged. We have made that absolutely clear in the Coal Authority explanatory note that we have published. I very much hope that when my right hon. Friend introduces his proposals, he will be able to take account of what I recognise as hon. Members' genuine concerns. I hope that he will be able to get the balance right and that he can take account of all of the consultations. On the basis of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) will be willing not to press the new clause.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the explanations that the Minister has given. He seems again to have passed the buck to the Department of the Environment. We have seen the buck passed during the past two or three years and it is still being passed. The Opposition made it clear in Committee that we were not satisfied with the explanations that were given by the Minister and that we would bring the matter to the Floor of House.
My hon. Friends and I can hardly be satisfied with the way in which the Executive have disregarded the views of the legislature tonight. The House heard interesting remarks from the hon. Members for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), for Newark (Mr. Alexander), and for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), and from the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow). They are Conservative Members, and that suggests that there is cross-party support for the suggestion that phrasing on contaminated water should appear somehow in the Bill. On the basis of that, I will not press the amendments, but will seek to divide the House on new clause 3.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 293.

Division No. 175]
[8.50 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Fatchett, Derek


Ainger, Nick
Faulds, Andrew


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Allen, Graham
Flynn, Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Armstrong, Hilary
Foulkes, George


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fraser, John


Ashton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Austin-Walker, John
Galbraith, Sam


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Galloway, George


Barnes, Harry
Gapes, Mike


Barron, Kevin
Garrett, John


Battle, John
George, Bruce


Bayley, Hugh
Gerrard, Neil


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Godsiff, Roger


Bell, Stuart
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gordon, Mildred


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gould, Bryan


Benton, Joe
Graham, Thomas


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Betts, Clive
Grocott, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Gunnell, John


Blunkett, David
Hain, Peter


Boateng, Paul
Hall, Mike


Bradley, Keith
Hanson, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Harvey, Nick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Burden, Richard
Henderson, Doug


Byers, Stephen
Heppell, John


Caborn, Richard
Hill, Keith (Streatham)



Callaghan, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoey, Kate


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)



Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Home Robertson, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hood, Jimmy


Cann, Jamie
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clapham, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Hutton, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Ingram, Adam


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jamieson, David


Cousins, Jim
Janner, Greville


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davidson, Ian
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dewar, Donald
Khabra, Piara S.


Dixon, Don
Kilfoyle, Peter


Donohoe, Brian H.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dowd, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Terry


Eagle, Ms Angela
Litherland, Robert


Eastham, Ken
Livingstone, Ken


Enright, Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Etherington, Bill
Llwyd, Elfyn





Loyden, Eddie
Radice, Giles


Lynne, Ms Liz
Randall, Stuart


McAllion, John
Raynsford, Nick


McAvoy, Thomas
Redmond, Martin


McCartney, Ian
Reid, Dr John


McCrea, Rev William
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Macdonald, Calum
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McFall, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McKelvey, William
Rogers, Allan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


McLeish, Henry
Rooney, Terry


McMaster, Gordon
Rowlands, Ted


McNamara, Kevin
Ruddock, Joan


McWilliam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Madden, Max
Shearman, Barry


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Alice
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mandelson, Peter
Short, Clare


Marek, Dr John
Simpson, Alan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Michael, Alun
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Milburn, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Stott, Roger


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri
Straw, Jack


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Vaz, Keith


Mudie, George
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mullin, Chris
Wallace, James


Murphy, Paul
Walley, Joan


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wareing, Robert N


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Watson, Mike


Olner, William
Welsh, Andrew


O'Neill, Martin
Wicks, Malcolm


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Parry, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Brian


Pickthall, Colin
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L.
Wise, Audrey


Pope, Greg
Wray, Jimmy


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wright, Dr Tony


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prescott, John
Tellers for the Ayes


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. John Cummings, and Mr. Dennis Turner.


Purchase, Ken



Quin, Ms Joyce





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Batiste, Spencer


Aitken, Jonathan
Bellingham, Henry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bendall, Vivian


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Body, Sir Richard


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Booth, Hartley


Aspinwall, Jack
Boswell, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bowden, Andrew


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bowis, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Baldry, Tony
Brandreth, Gyles


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brazier, Julian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bright, Graham


Bates, Michael
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)






Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nicholas
Hannam, Sir John


Burns, Simon

Hargreaves, Andrew


Butler, Peter
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)



Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert



Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dover, Den
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan, Alan
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Eggar, Tim
Knox, Sir David


Elletson, Harold
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Leigh, Edward


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Fishburn, Dudley
Luff, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maclean, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Madel, Sir David


Fry, Sir Peter
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gale, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Gallie, Phil
Malone, Gerald


Gardiner, Sir George
Mans, Keith


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marland, Paul


Garnier, Edward
Marlow, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mates, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Merchant, Piers


Gorst, John
Mills, Iain


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moate, Sir Roger


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Grylls, Sir Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Sir Michael





Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stem, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Streeter, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Sumberg, David


Norris, Steve
Sweeney, Walter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sykes, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Page, Richard
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Paice, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Patnick, Irvine
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thomason, Roy


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pickles, Eric
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Ronton, Rt Hon Tim
Tredinnick, David


Richards, Rod
Trend, Michael


Riddick, Graham
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robathan, Andrew
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Viggers, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Walden, George


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Ward, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sackville, Tom
Waterson, Nigel


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Watts, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whittingdale, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Widdecombe, Ann



Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Willerts, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wilshire, David


Speed, Sir Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Spink, Dr Robert
Yeo, Tim


Spring, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George



Sproat, Iain



Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Stephen, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

'.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to assist the long-term future of the coal industry by ensuring that there is adequate long-term investment in mining technology and coal utilisation research.

(2) In pursuance of its duty under subsection (1) above, the Authority shall impose a levy on all licensed operations.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the Authority fulfils its duty under subsection (1) of this section.

(4) The Secretary of State may, out of money provided by Parliament, pay the Authority such money as the Authority requires to perform its duty under subsection (1) of this section.'.—[Mr. O'Neill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
For many years, the mining industry had very little in the way of research and development. In fact, it was the newly nationalised coal industry which, after the second world war, developed what are the two remaining research establishments—the establishment at Cheltenham, and the technical services research executive establishment at


Bretby. Both establishments have contributed to the technological advances that have been made over the years by British Coal which have resulted in the British industry being the most efficient, productive and indeed the cheapest deep mining industry in the world.
Although the industry has contracted considerably in size, it is nevertheless essential that if this country is to produce coal at a competitive price which can be utilised in the most effective way, we should continue with the programme of research which is presently under way.
The establishment at Cheltenham has been regarded, in the words of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, as a "world centre of excellence". The work that has been done there—particularly the work on clean coal technology and the coal topping cycle—when applied in major power stations will increase the thermal efficiency of generation from about 36 to 47 per cent. That would be a major breakthrough.
At the moment, the people at Cheltenham assess that they are about 18 months ahead of their American competitors, but that lead is being whittled away as a result of the amount of money that the American Government spend on research and development into coal technology, and by the commitment of the American Government, the makers of generating equipment and the American coal generators to develop clean coal technology. As with pressurised fluid bed technology, which was sold abroad at a much reduced price and incurred, as a consequence, the condemnation of the Select Committee on Energy some years ago, we are in danger of losing world leadership in the sector.
The new clause requires the Government, in conjunction with the Coal Authority, to establish a levy to fund coal research. We already have a levy to fund coal research. It is used to ensure that we are able to secure money from the European Community coal and steel fund. That means that a great deal of the work that is done in Cheltenham is funded from sources outwith the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that, in addition to that work generated from outside the UK, work is generated from inside the United Kingdom.
For those reasons, we put forward the new clause. We believe that this issue lies at the heart of the future of the British coal industry. If it is possible to develop and apply the new technologies, funding will become available for future developments and future investment.
It is not simply a matter of being in love with technology for its own sake; it is important because the new technologies will be far more environmentally friendly. They will enable Britain to meet the commitments that we entered into at Rio. The levy would enable the continuation of research and expertise and it would ensure that the United Kingdom continued to play a leading role. That leading role would not only enable us to secure markets for coal or coal technology, but ensure that the generators were in a position to sell British equipment when they offered their services to other countries.
In recent months, much has been made about the capacity of British Gas to offer a worldwide service—to develop the gas industry in other countries. As British Gas enters world markets, its suppliers will work abroad as well. It is our belief that, even if it is in private hands, the coal industry would provide opportunities for the

development of coal equipment and coal use abroad. We believe that the research that is done in the two establishments to which I referred—research which, on occasion, has been done on a shoestring budget—should be sustained and supported. Nowhere in the Bill is any reference made to that. The new clause is an attempt to ensure that such work can be given its due place and its due recognition in the Bill.
We recognise that there are, among the prospective owners of the new coal industry, comparatively few people who will have their own research and development facilities. If they are to make use of research and development, it will be on the basis of buying in from abroad unless the money is raised at source. That is why we advocate a levy and why we have advanced our argument for research and development. The Coal Authority could redress the imbalance by ensuring that adequate long-term research is funded by the Government and private coal owners so that Britain's lead in the world is sustained.
The United States spends $163 million a year on coal research while Japan, which has virtually no coal resources of its own but imports most of its coal, invests some $177 million in coal technology and research. Britain's commitment of just $10 million has already resulted in our leading the world in the important area of clean coal technology. It would be nothing short of criminal if the House did not duly recognise that achievement and ensure that appropriate funds were available to sustain it once private ownership is established.
The new clause will go some way towards dealing with that, and we hope that the Minister will look favourably at it. Nothing in the Government's ambitions or intentions for the coal industry will accommodate research and development in the technologies required, which is why we have advanced the new clause and why I hope that hon. Members will be prepared to give it the fair wind that it deserves.

Mr. Redmond: One reason why we are so opposed to privatising the coal industry is what happened prior to nationalisation, when private mine owners made no effort towards research and development.
Bretby research centre springs to mind because the old area director in Doncaster, Trig Ellis, went there. Much of the research and development carried out there has brought about improvements in the industry and saved many lives. Bretby helped to cut down and, in some cases, eliminate dust, which plagued miners for years and caused pneumoconiosis.
It is important that research and development continue. I doubt whether private owners will invest in them, so some sort of levy must be imposed to enable them to continue. In the days of the Yorkshire miners summer school, Bretby researchers used to give excellent talks every Wednesday to miners at those schools.
I tabled a question to the Minister for Energy about imported coal, which has caused fatalities in France. The Minister is looking into why that happened. The amount of foreign fuel being imported is 18.5 million tonnes. It is important that the industry should know whether that fuel is safe for domestic and industrial consumption. Establishments such as the research and development stations will provide assurance in this respect.
The research stations have done such an excellent job that the country has earned a substantial amount from the export of technology resulting specifically from their


achievements. The export of technology is helping our balance of payments as well as ensuring safety in the coal mines. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will accept this very modest new clause.

Mr. Dickens: In fairness to Opposition Members who want to participate in the debate, I shall make a short contribution.
Our mining industry is perhaps one of the finest in the world, and we have consultants all over the world helping nations to develop their skills and their industries, This must continue, but that will happen only if there is research. Whether in respect of clean coal technology or in respect of the gasification of coal, it must be remembered that the Government do not have any money, that funds are provided by taxpayers or raised through a levy, which consumers then have to pay.
Strangely enough, in Europe and In the United States it is the oil companies that are putting money into the technology involved in the gasification of coal. British Gas, in conjunction with Lurgi, is investing a good deal and will continue to do so if it is satisfied about commercial viability. In other words, there will have to be a pay-back for all the research. This has happened with the pharmaceutical companies. Those undertakings pumped money into research, knowing what success with a drug would mean.

Mr. Clapham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Americans are investing about $700 million in new coal technology? That certainly is not being done just by private companies; it is supported by the Government.

Mr. Dickens: The American Government are very much more wealthy than the British Government. It is up to them to make their own monetary decisions, just as we do. We have to set expenditure priorities.
I hope that all the current research projects will continue. It is desirable that, at the end of this short debate, the Minister should be able to tell us that none of them will be stopped. Let us hope for an undertaking that if private sector technologies look like becoming world winners the Government will consider providing some priming money. In the meantime, market forces must be allowed to dictate, as projects must be bankable. Banks must analyse projects and see the prospect of a pay-back.
I can envisage the gasification of coal becoming quite big, but only when gas resources have become depleted. It is at that stage that the process will become much more viable. In the meantime, the gas companies and the oil companies are investing money, and they will continue to do so. I want to see market-led research, which seems to work very well. Research and development that results in a return for individual companies and for the United Kingdom as a whole is the most healthy type.
Therefore, as I have said, it is to be hoped that the projects currently under way will be allowed to continue. I hope that if someone comes up with an innovation that looks like a winner for the United Kingdom some priming money will be found.
I have some sympathy with the case made by the Opposition, but research and development should be dictated by the market rather than funded by taxpayers and electricity consumers, who always seem to pick up the bill.

Mr. Jack Thompson: For once in my political life, I find myself in agreement with something said by the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens)—his comments about investment and market forces. Over the years, the private sector has certainly made a limited contribution to research and development in the industry. At Grimethorpe and Point of Ayr work is being done on roducing oil from coal, for instance.
At Westfield in Scotland, there have been experiments on the Lurgi system of producing gas from coal. I was interested to see what happens there. The system is well advanced; 2,500 tonnes of coal at a time are put through the equipment, producing an exact equivalent of natural gas. That gas is put straight into the grid for consumers' use.
I am not an economist, but I am interested in what happens in America. The Americans are sending their coal to put through this equipment for test purposes, because they believe that there is a market for it. We have to think ahead to the time when North sea gas runs out—it may not be too far off. We have to produce new sources of energy—gas from coal, for example—in preparation for that time. What are the alternatives? It would not be a wonderful idea to get gas from the middle east, I imagine. To avoid that, we must start producing our own gas from coal.
As an engineer in the industry, I have benefited from technological developments over the years. Indeed, I have seen phenomenal progress in the mining industry, much of it started at the grass roots by engineers. Many years ago, a colleague of mine developed a piece of equipment for controlling conveyor systems; it regulated them in such a way that, when one stopped, the next one stopped, too—and so on. The equipment was taken away to Bretby and developed from its crude original form into a sophisticated piece of equipment that is sold all over the world. A company in Derbyshire, Davies, manufactures it, and private sector companies have benefited from it.
A conveyor signalling system has also been developed at Bretby. It is the best of its kind in the world, and we always found it a first-class device. Fire protection equipment also began life in the industry. Nowadays, we all have smoke alarms in our homes; 25 years ago, I saw similar equipment specially designed for the mining industry being installed in mines. From those early radioactive devices, the domestic alarms were developed.
It would be criminal if we were to lose all this experience and knowledge. The new clause suggests that the Coal Authority impose a levy on licensed operators. I suspect that they will benefit enormously from that arrangement. Even a small levy, combined with Government support, could help to maintain research and development and help the operators to produce coal in the amounts that they want, while keeping the mines safe.

Mr. Hardy: The House may recall that three or four years ago, I sought to raise the issue of the closure of the Coal Board science establishment at Wath upon Dearne in my constituency. It was unfortunately closed to concentrate research at Bretby—because Bretby was in a marginal Conservative seat. It decided that it would be better to move that resource southwards, although it is interesting that the hon. Lady who represents that area has not taken any interest in the debate.
It is essential that we maintain mines research. Conservative Members tend to think that the coal industry is finished and that coal is the energy of the past, but


countries with more sense than us are investing more in mining and are sinking more new pits in preparation for the day when reserves will be needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said that Japan has remarkably little coal of its own. It depends heavily on imports, yet the Government and industry there decided together that some of the biggest earnings would come from environmental and energy-related development. That is one reason why my hon. Friend was able to quote Japan's enormous investment in energy and environment research, even though it is not a producer of that energy.
In a little while, the Government will discover industry. It would not surprise me if, in the next two or three weeks, the Prime Minister were to make a speech recognising that industry is important. The Minister and his ministerial colleagues will jump on the Prime Minister's bandwagon and say that Britain has to start to seize its trading opportunities, enter world markets, increase its sales of manufactured goods and expand its technological base; yet we have here an enormously important industrial opportunity which we are likely to imperil.
We need to make earnings to compensate for the appalling balance of payments, for which the Government must bear heavy and historic responsibility. The balance of payments deficit will not be cleared unless we see the re-emergence of industry in Britain. There must be a reasonable home base to allow the coal technology industry to prosper. We have a world lead. Britain does not still lead the world in many sectors, yet the Government are about to throw away our lead in one of them. There is not much point in speaking to Ministers at great length. We tried it in Committee, without in any way filibustering. My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) may laugh, but he is well aware that that was the case.
If the Minister and his colleagues have any sense, they will recognise that Britain has a considerable opportunity and that there is enormous potential for record breaking. To throw that away would be an example of crass irresponsibility.
The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) talked for most of his speech about the need to rely on market forces. Towards the end, however, he began to talk about the market-led economy and the possibility of a bit of seed money being thrown in by the Government, which seemed to contradict his earlier remarks. Even he perceived the need to maintain research and a role for the Government. Why are the Government less than interested in co-operating with business—be it in the public or private sector—and in stimulating investment to secure jobs for our people and earnings for our country? Why have they failed more than the Government in any other industrial nation to pursue the course that even the hon. Gentleman began, in the second part of his speech, to recognise was valuable?
The debate represents the last gasp of opportunity, unless the House of Lords has some wise words and a little weight to put into the debate, for Britain to cling to a sector in which she has displayed some international leadership, which is likely to bring a great deal of international profit. One hopes that the Minister and his colleagues will not throw the opportunity away.

Mr. Tipping: I do not think that anyone can deny that there have recently been some bleak years for our coal industry. I have heard Conservative Members say that there is no future for coal. But if we look at what is happening internationally, we see that new coal-fired power stations are being built in China, India and Pakistan. They are, to some extent, using British consultancies, British professionalism and British equipment. There will be life after gas here in Europe. Gas will run out and when the much-vaunted and much-delayed nuclear review comes, we shall get to the bottom of the financing of nuclear electricity. In perhaps 10, 20 or 30 years, Britain and Europe will be looking at a future for coal.
Is it not sad that the Bill says absolutely nothing about research and development? In contrast, the Coal Research Establishment near Cheltenham is a world beater, a centre of international repute. Some of the consultants mentioned by the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) go from the Coal Research Establishment and offer consultancies abroad. That brings money, jobs and investment back into this country.
Even in these bleak years, we must offer a beacon of hope for the future. Unless we are careful, we shall destroy the Coal Research Establishment at Cheltenham. It is important that its staff should be kept together, and we can do that by looking for sources for funding. Funding needs to be pump priming, but it cannot be short term—research takes years. A good example of that is liquefication—the topping cycle has taken many years to get right.
We must show in the Bill that there is a future for investment and for a cleaner environment. We must give the people who work at the Coal Research Establishment and at the centre at Bretby that opportunity for the future. We must keep the flame burning and, even in these bleak times, the new clause provides an opportunity to do so.

Mr. David Hanson: I want to speak in support of new clause 4. It is regrettable, particularly for those of us who sat through the Committee stage of the Bill, to find that, after all our deliberations, it contains no mention of research and development. That is why it is important that the new clause should be accepted.
The new clause would set down for the first time in the Bill that there would be an organisation with a duty in statute to monitor and encourage research and development. That is important because we cannot leave such matters solely to the private sector. The new clause states that there will be a levy on the private sector—the new owner of the coal industry—to ensure that some of the profits are ploughed back into research and development to create, for example, clean coal, more efficient ways of producing coal and to increase the ways in which the British economy can be expanded by improvements in the quality of materials produced from the coal market. We have not heard anything from the Minister about what is to happen now that such factors have not been included in the Bill and the coal industry is to be privatised.
There must be an overview of the industry and its performance in terms of research and development. If the Minister rejects the new clause, the key question for him to answer will be how—in the absence of the Coal Authority's having responsibility for such matters, having the power to set a levy and having Government support to implement such a levy—the private sector will be able to,


or want to, invest in developments such as clean-coal technology, improved machinery and improved productivity. There has to be an external body, particularly when the coal industry faces short-term contracts of three to four years at the most.
I asked which private sector industry coming into the new invigorated market, if the Bill receives a Third Reading and is approved by the other place, will undertake investment in research and development when we have three-year contracts and short-term operations for the coal industry.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, the idea of a levy and having some Government overview of research and development is not revolutionary. The Australian Government provide a 150 per cent. tax rebate for research and development matters. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), some £700 million from the American federal resources is pumped into the private sector industry annually to provide research and development. Even the South African coal industry—not one which I would recommend whole-heartedly to the House—has in principle a levy on production and future investment into the industry.
In comparison, if our industry is privatised and no safeguards are built into the Bill, research and development will be left to the private sector. If that happens, it will cut corners; it will not do it because it will think about the short term.
I shall complete my remarks with two important examples from my constituency. The Point of Ayr colliery is currently using the continuous miner system—a system of mining developed in the United States, through the investment of some of the £700 million that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Pen:istone mentioned earlier. That money was invested in the industry, making vast productivity gains in how the pit in my constituency develops and produces coal. It is much more efficient; productivity has soared in the past three to four years.
Each of the new machines cost £3 million to install. They cost millions of pounds of American money to develop. Why will we not be in that market after privatisation? Where will the private sector be in that market after privatisation?
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) mentioned the Point of Ayr liquefaction plant. I went to the opening of that plant, which turns coal into oil, when I was prospective candidate for my constituency before the 1987 election. Since then, until it was sold to the private sector some six months ago, that facility had not made a penny profit; it probably still does not now and will not for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Hardy: Probably not in this century, but the next one.

Mr. Hanson: As my hon. Friend says, it probably will not happen this century.
The investment and development of the process took place under the auspices of British Coal. If the new clause is not accepted, how would the equivalent of the Point of Ayr liquefaction plant in my constituency fare in the private sector jungle that will exist after privatisation?
Very few private sector operators will invest seven to eight years of massive resources into developing a process that may or may not produce a profit.
The clause should be accepted because it guarantees the future of research and development and makes sure that next century we will have an efficient coal industry that produces goods that people want to sell and develops processes of which Britain can be proud, rather than importing processes from those countries that have had the foresight to put in the money.

Mr. Etherington: In 1979, I visited Bretby and the Stoke Orchard research centre near Cheltenham. At that time, it was an exciting prospect for the coal industry, which appeared to have a future. I also recall that people in my union and in the industry in general rightly pointed out that the amount of cash being put into research in the coal industry paled into insignificance against that being spent on the nuclear industry. Yet at that time, we were told that the coal industry had a viable future.
It has since been proved that those who were sceptical about the coal industry were correct, and unless the Government accept the clause, it will prove something that was pointed out to me many years ago. I was told, "When you look at investment in an industry, look first at the proportion that goes into research and development." That—rather than the amount spent on redundancy payments, giving industries away, producing glossy brochures or paying a city to get rid of industries by putting them into the private sector—gives some idea of the industry's potential future.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who is keen to leave everything to the private sector. This country can provide the finest proof ever seen anywhere in the world that that does not work. If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to the 1950s, he will recall that, in those days, we had a fine motor cycle manufacturing industry—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Benn killed it.

Mr. Etherington: If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We would still have that motorcycle industry, had not the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) backed one of the companies against the other. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me remind hon. Members that we are not discussing the motor cycle industry.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: He was.

Mr. Etherington: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is unfortunate that, following your ruling, I am unable to reply to the hon. Lady's intervention; there is an answer, as I am sure you are well aware.
The fact is that the motor cycle manufacturing industry was left to private enterprise. While our Government and private enterprise were spending nothing whatever on research and development in real terms, the Japanese were, and we have all seen the result: Japan has become the predominant motor manufacturer in the world.
If the Government do not accept new clause 4, they will prove what many of us have believed for a long time—that the privatisation of the coal industry is an interim measure


in advance of its total destruction. The money spent on nuclear energy and nuclear development comes not from the private sector, but from the Government.
We are always being told how wonderful Japan, Germany and the United States are, and what marvellous industries they have; what the Government do not tell us is that those countries' Governments believe in supporting their industries. This Government do not believe in supporting the coal industry. We are always being told about the amount being invested, but examination of the amount spent on research and development shows it to be minuscule.
The same can be said of research and development in renewable energy. The way in which the money is being invested suggests that we shall have a burgeoning nuclear industry in the future. That is what it is all about—nothing else. Many people in this country believed that, after Chernobyl, there would be a moratorium of many years on, and perhaps an eventual rundown of, the nuclear industry. That is not the Government's intention, as is shown by the amount being spent on research and development.
As I have said, the industry is now at an interim stage. The rip-off merchants will move in, and get the remainder of the coal out with the minimum investment. I feel that research and development is too important to be left to the private sector. That has been proved by other nations: all nations that are successful in any given sector ensure that a fair amount of public expenditure goes into research and development, for the benefit of those nations.
The Government do not believe in that; they believe in leaving everything to market forces. The new clause clearly states:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the Authority fulfils its duty".
The Secretary of State does not want that duty, as the result of the vote will demonstrate.
I am pleased to see the Minister smiling. He often makes me smile, and I do not mind his reciprocating; that is fine. However, anyone who wishes to establish the position of any given sector should find out what is being invested in research and development.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: He has said that five times.

Mr. Etherington: If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene again, I shall be happy to give way.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was commenting on the fact that the hon. Gentleman has already said that five times—as he will see if he reads Hansard tomorrow.

Mr. Etherington: It does not matter how many times I say something: I shall certainly make more sense than the hon. Lady. However, I am pleased that she is at least taking notice, because that is not one of her prevalent characteristics.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am interested in the nuclear industry, not the coal industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should have less chatter across the Chamber. Let us get on with the debate.

Mr. Etherington: The coal industry will be doomed unless new clause 4 is accepted—not only its words but its spirit—which is why I suspect that the Government will not accept it.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I shall be brief, as there is clearly some repetition.
We all agree that Britain is renowned for its innovations and its research and development—so much so, that many international firms have come here, not to pick our brains and leave but to establish their own research and development. I am thinking especially of IBM and other companies involved in research and development in the coal industry.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) said, the budget for research and development in the coal industry is only a fraction of what the nuclear industry receives, yet, with only that fraction, it has produced many innovations which have been picked up worldwide. I will list a few.
Fluoridised bed combustion boilers are an efficient way of burning even low calorific, wet fuel such as slurry, but the development is going abroad although it can be used on a small scale by, for example, a farmer heating grain or other products.
We led the field in the flame-proofing of underground electrical equipment. We have developed safety equipment such as self-rescuers for men to carry underground, and hydraulic splints. We also worked on underground methane monitoring, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) mentioned smoke alarms. Water barriers for explosions were perfected at Bretby, and I saw them tested there many years ago.
We have improved lighting underground and ventilation through the design of portable and surface fans. Companies such as Thermotank sell their products abroad. Of course, we now have machines with built-in sensors which cut coal but not the roof or the floor.
We should be proud of our manufacturing industry and the position we hold, but we are now fighting a rearguard action. The export potential of our innovations is obvious. Anderson Strathclyde was bought by a South African company, which recognised its potential and is now manufacturing for international markets rather than the home market.
Only last week, I was invited to the Chinese embassy for a reception. I was asked about my visit to investigate the Chinese coal industry 10 years ago. I was told that China is now the largest producer of coal in the world, and the Chinese believe that their coal industry can continue to expand—they realise that coal has potential. China is only one nation, but much of the equipment I saw there was British, and I was proud to see it in use. We ask that the Government put a levy on this newly evolved private enterprise, so that establishments and many schemes will survive.
One thing that worries us is that where there is no coal industry, there is nowhere to perfect machinery, plant or methods. What is more, there is no showpiece where potential buyers can see machinery working; adaptation cannot easily be undertaken from afar. Companies are now inclined to remove their manufacturing base from Britain,


to go where the customer is. In other words, they are moving to where there is expansion and where people are investing in coal mining.
I am talking sense based on the facts— I believe that Britain knows what is good for it. I am talking sense to the Government, who seem to be in some way biased. As the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, they are all for the nuclear industry. It is peculiar that the City of London is not for the nuclear industry. It would not buy it, or touch it with a bargepole. The Government could not even sell it or give it away, because it is a liability. I suggest that the hon. Lady talks to her capitalist friends, who will tell her the same. What can be done with an old nuclear station?
If we had invested in research and development in the coal industry, we would have been light years ahead of any other country. Will the Government at this stage take on board and support the amendment? I shall go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), and say that if we do not invest in research and development, the country is dead. That applies to all industry. If we do not invest in research and development, which we are good at, our workers will be head-hunted and taken abroad, and manufacturing will occur abroad. We shall be just a screwdriver society, which Conservative Members seem to think is marvellous.

Mr. Clapham: I shall be brief and to the point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) said, it is important that the Minister say that he is prepared to take on the provision outlined in new clause 4, because no clause provides for an authority for research and development. My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) has already referred to the great steps that the Coal Research Establishment has made in developing the combined cycle and the topping cycle techniques, which are now used worldwide. We have heard reference to their use in China and Pakistan, but countries closer to Britain with great gas resources are also using that new technology.
The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) referred to market forces bringing forth other resources to replace coal.

Mr. Dickens: It was not my intention to give that impression. I was outlining alternative uses for coal, such as gasification: I was advocating not the replacement of coal, but its further and different use.

Mr. Clapham: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's comments, but his reference to market forces gives the impression that he is talking in terms of the replacement of coal through the interaction of those market forces. May I refer him to the situation in Holland, where, for example, in Buggenum, a $600 million clean-coal technology plant was opened? It is a 250 MW plant, and the Dutch are looking to the future and talking of building another six. That country has 70 years of gas reserves, yet it is looking to new, clean-coal technology, because it believes that gas prices are likely to increase.
New clause 4 refers not only to the Coal Research Establishment, but to new technology in the coal mining industry. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to tell us that he will ensure that that technology will be available to the industry. Unless we can run an establishment that provides for a universal application of new technology

throughout the industry, we are likely to find high-technology collieries competing against low-technology collieries, forcing down wages, and terms and conditions, to 19th-century levels.
It is extremely important that we have an establishment such as the Technical Services and Research Executive, which took over from the Mines Research and Development Establishment, so that new technology will be available to the new owners. If we do not take that route, we are likely to find that we degenerate towards 19th-century working practices. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to take on the provisions of new clause 4.

Mr. McLoughlin: Some of the points covered relate to the useful debate that we had on amendment No. 23 in Committee. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that full advantage is taken of advances in coal research and mining technology. However, it must be primarily for the industry to decide what research it will need to develop—where appropriate, in partnership with the Government, through bodies such as the Advisory Committee on Coal Research.
The Government have already established a firm foundation for coal research in the United Kingdom, first by increasing Department funding from less than £3 million to £7 million a year until 1995–96. Precise funding needs after that will be agreed following the planned review of the programme involving the industry in 1995. We are also establishing the new Advisory Committee on Coal Research, to replace the coal task force and advise on United Kingdom coal research needs across the board. United Kingdom industry and universities are playing a leading part in the work of the new committee.
The Government are also establishing collaborative research links between United Kingdom industry and universities, and with other EC countries and the United States. There is therefore no need for the authority to take on a co-ordinating role that we believe is already being adequately fulfilled. The authority is intended to be a non-interventionist body, and should not support the R and D work that is more appropriately funded by the industry itself. I have every confidence that the future coal companies will be able to find the most appropriate mechanisms for co-ordinating their activities where there is benefit to be derived from doing so.
The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) let the cat out of the bag: he revealed his hatred for the private sector when he referred to it as a jungle. Without the research that has come from that "jungle", there would not have been the levels of investment or the developments that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) mentioned.
The Department's coal research and development programme is increasing, and contributes to about 115 projects, with a total value of more than £170 million. Since the coal review White Paper, we have initiated more than 60 coal research projects covering coal utilisation and mining issues. Many more are at the planning stage, and involve the Coal Research Establishment as well as the United Kingdom industry, universities and overseas agencies. In 1994, we intend to publish a detailed strategy paper setting out our future plans for coal research and describing the work under way in the present programme.
Several hon. Members spoke about the CRE. Its future is a matter for British Coal, and I understand that no decision has yet been taken. However, the Government believe that the best way of widening the opportunities


available to the CRE in world markets is for it to become more of an independent organisation. The increased support that the Government offer over the next two years will ensure that senior management have sufficient time to develop CRE's business further and to attract funds from elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) rightly told us that industry should decide on its own research and fund it, but funding should also be available through national bodies. The Department of Trade and Industry helps in several ways, some of which I have already outlined.
British Coal is managing the arrangements for the future of the ancillary parts of its current business, and is considering the options for the Technical Services and Research Executive. One aspect of TSRE's activities—the health and safety expertise—was highlighted by the Health and Safety Commission. The commission said that it would be desirable for that expertise to continue to be available after privatisation.
The corporation is fully aware of the commission's advice to the Government, and shares the Government's determination that safety should be the first priority. It has assured us that its proposals will be fully consistent with the commission's advice.
The House will want to know that we have agreed with the corporation that additional public funding of more than £2 million will be available between 1995 and 1998 to ensure that that valuable programme of research continues, and that the necessary expertise is available to the new owners of the industry. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy answered a parliamentary question on the subject yesterday, and his reply is recorded at column 43 of Hansard.
We have demonstrated that the Government take the issue seriously, so I ask my hon. Friends to reject the new clause.

Mr. O'Neill: The Opposition will press the new clause to a vote, because the Minister's answers were wholly unsatisfactory. The engine that has driven coal technology research and the other research programmes in Britain has been British Coal and its predecessor, the National Coal Board. The Opposition believe that, in the absence of such a state-owned agency, we need something else. The Coal Authority operating a levy would be the best means of doing that, so I urge my hon. Friends to vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 296.

Division No. 176]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Battle, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bayley, Hugh


Ainger, Nick
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Allen, Graham
Bell, Stuart


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bennett, Andrew F.


Armstrong, Hilary
Benton, Joe


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Berry, Roger


Austin-Walker, John
Betts, Clive


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blair, Tony


Barnes, Harry
Blunkett, David


Barron, Kevin
Boateng, Paul





Boyes, Roland
Hall, Mike


Bradley, Keith
Hanson, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Burden, Richard
Henderson, Doug


Byers, Stephen
Heppell, John


Caborn, Richard
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Callaghan, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoey, Kate


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Home Robertson, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hood, Jimmy


Cann, Jamie
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clapham, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Hutton, John


Connarty, Michael
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)



Corbett, Robin
Jamieson, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Janner, Greville


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cummings, John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dafis, Cynog
Jowell, Tessa


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Darling, Alistair
Keen, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Khabra, Piara S.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dewar, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Donohoe, Brian H.
Litherland, Robert


Dowd, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eagle, Ms Angela
Loyden, Eddie


Eastham, Ken
Lynne, Ms Liz


Enright, Derek
McAllion, John


Etherington, Bill
McAvoy, Thomas


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McCartney, Ian


Fatchett, Derek
McCrea, Rev William


Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, Calum


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McFall, John


Flynn, Paul
McKelvey, William


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
McLeish, Henry


Foulkes, George
McMaster, Gordon


Fraser, John
McNamara, Kevin


Fyfe, Maria
McWilliam, John


Galbraith, Sam
Madden, Max


Galloway, George
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Gapes, Mike
Mahon, Alice


Garrett, John
Mandelson, Peter


George, Bruce
Marek, Dr John


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Godsiff, Roger
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Martlew, Eric


Gordon, Mildred
Maxton, John


Gould, Bryan
Meacher, Michael


Graham, Thomas
Michael, Alun


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Milburn, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Andrew


Gunnell, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hain, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis






Morgan, Rhodri
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morley, Elliot
Short, Clare


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Simpson, Alan


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mudie, George
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Murphy, Paul
Snape, Peter


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Spellar, John


Olner, William
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


O'Neill, Martin
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steinberg, Gerry


Parry, Robert
Stevenson, George


Patchett, Terry
Stott, Roger


Pendry, Tom
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pickthall, Colin
Straw, Jack


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pope, Greg
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Turner, Dennis


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Vaz, Keith


Prescott, John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Primarolo, Dawn
Wallace, James


Purchase, Ken
Walley, Joan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Radice, Giles
Wareing, Robert N


Randall, Stuart
Welsh, Andrew


Raynsford, Nick
Wicks, Malcolm


Redmond, Martin
Wigley, Dafydd


Reid, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rendel, David
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wilson, Brian


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Winnick, David


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wise, Audrey


Rogers, Allan
Worthington, Tony


Rooker, Jeff
Wray, Jimmy


Rooney, Terry
Wright, Dr Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ruddock, Joan



Salmond, Alex
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Eric Illsley.


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brandreth, Gyles


Aitken, Jonathan
Brazier, Julian


Alexander, Richard
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Amess, David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Arbuthnot, James
Budgen, Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Butler, Peter


Ashby, David
Butterfill, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Atkins, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cash, William


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Chapman, Sydney


Baldry, Tony
Churchill, Mr


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clappison, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bates, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Batiste, Spencer
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bellingham, Henry
Coe, Sebastian


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Congdon, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Cormack, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Cran, James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bowden, Andrew
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bowis, John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)





Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, Sir James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, Sir David


Eggar, Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Elletson, Harold
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evennett, David
Lidington, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lightbown, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Fishburn, Dudley
Luff, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maclean, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Madel, Sir David


French, Douglas
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fry, Sir Peter
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gallie, Phil
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, Sir George
Marlow, Tony


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garnier, Edward
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Merchant, Piers


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mills, Iain


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Moss, Malcolm


Grylls, Sir Michael
Needham, Richard


Hague, William
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Page, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Paice, James


Hayes, Jerry
Patnick, Irvine


Heald, Oliver
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hendry, Charles
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)






Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Sackville, Tom
Thurnham, Peter


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trend, Michael


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shersby, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walden, George


Speed, Sir Keith
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Spring, Richard
Watts, John


Sproat, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Stephen, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stewart, Allan
Wilkinson, John


Streeter, Gary
Willetts, David


Sumberg, David
Wilshire, David


Sweeney, Walter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sykes. John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomason, Roy
Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Michael Brown.


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.14 (Exempted Business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Coal Industry Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

New Clause 5

BRITISH COAL ENTERPRISE

'.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that British Coal Enterprise is adequately funded in order that it may continue to assist the regeneration of coalfield areas.

(2) The functions of British Coal Enterprise shall include:

(a) providing counselling and job search facilities for current and former coal industry employees;
(b) assisting current and former coal industry employees to obtain training which is likely to improve their chances of finding alternative employment;
(c) providing assistance and advice for persons who wish to provide additional employment in areas affected by the closure of coal mines, including former coal industry employees who wish to become self-employed; and
(d) providing business premises on concessionary leases to assist employment growth in areas affected by the closure of coal mines.

(3) The Secretary of State may make payments by way of grants to British Coal Enterprise to fulfil his duty under subsection (1) of this section.'.—[Mr. O'Neill.]

Brought up, and read the First time

Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
British Coal Enterprise has enjoyed something of a love-hate relationship with some Opposition Members. We

have on occasions viewed with some cynicism the somewhat extravagant claims that British Coal Enterprise has made for its success in placing people and creating jobs. Certainly, on occasions we have had to look carefully at the statistics and have found them, to say the least, unconvincing. If some of the employment was translated into full-time equivalents, the figures would not be anything like so high as those that British Coal Enterprise suggested.
Although I make all those qualifications, as one who represents a mining area I know that a number of businesses have benefited from, if not soft loans, loans that would otherwise have been difficult to obtain. The level of interest charged is not necessarily low, but the security required is not substantial.
On occasion, the training facilities provided by British Coal Enterprise have been of great use to the communities that have been so ravaged by unemployment. It has become evident during today's debate, and in past debates on the coal industry, that areas that have enjoyed reasonable standards of prosperity in the last 20 or 30 years have often been those where the future of the coal industry seemed assured. It is in those areas that the rapid contraction, and indeed collapse, of the coal industry has meant that those communities and economies have been well nigh destroyed.
10.15 pm
Poverty is once again returning to coalfield areas. In South Yorkshire, the average income is only 75 per cent. of the European average. The only parts of the United Kingdom that are below that rate are Merseyside, Northern Ireland and the highlands and islands—all areas which are accorded special status and recognition by the European Union. Mid Glamorgan is the most impoverished county in Britain, with an average income lower than that in Taiwan. Rural Nottinghamshire is the most depressed rural area in Britain, with 39 per cent. of the population in poverty. I make that point because while the standards of living in some of these areas have never been particularly high, they are now at levels of catastrophic disadvantage.

Mr. John Evans: Merseyside lost its last pit when Parkside closed 16 or 17 months ago. A recent Coalfield Communities Campaign survey of those Parkside miners who had managed to get jobs found that they had suffered an average drop of £72 per week in their earnings. Is that not the kind of poverty that my hon. Friend is talking about?

Mr. O'Neill: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that the level of income now being enjoyed by many former British Coal employees bears no comparison with that which they achieved previously, especially when they were working underground as face workers and the like. It is very difficult to obtain alternative employment, and where it is available it tends to be poorly paid. Often, employment is of a kind that requires very little training because it tends to be the stacking of supermarket shelves and the like.
If we are to have any chance of restoring those local economies, we need to sustain present resources over this period of uncertainty in the coal industry. I attended a meeting in my constituency last week in the former mining village of Cowie where the local enterprise group blithely told me that British Coal Enterprise had ceased and that no more money was available. That is not so—British Coal


Enterprise will carry on for some time—but we have had no satisfactory undertakings from the Minister on how long it will continue, the level of funding that it should have, and the functions that it will be able to perform as the coal industry falls further down the ranks of major employers in this country.
What we are asking for in the new clause is quite clear. We want it to be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that British Coal Enterprise is adequately funded to carry on its existing duties and responsibilities, which should cover aspects such as counselling and job search for current and former coal industry employees. British Coal Enterprise should assist those employees to obtain training, where appropriate, and to enhance their chances of finding alternative employment. It should also provide assistance and advice to people who wish to provide additional employment in the areas affected by the closure of mines, including former coal industry employees who wish to become self-employed.
We recognise that in many instances British Coal Enterprise has played a critical role in affording people second or third chances when others have said that they were not the best bets for financial help. We know that on occasions British Coal Enterprise had imaginative plans for the development of industrial sites where other organisations were reluctant to put money. We believe that British Coal Enterprise has a contribution to make throughout the range of employment creation and employment stimulation activities, and that it should be enshrined in the legislation that creates a new coal industry in this country. We are not confident of the long-term future of that industry and we feel that it is essential that the Government be committed to providing whatever financial support is necessary in the event of further pit closures occurring after privatisation.
As I said at the outset, we are not in the least critical of British Coal Enterprise. Several of us have built up, of necessity, good relationships with the local officials arid we like to think that we can get whatever is available. Although invariably it is not enough, we are thankful in many respects for the small mercies that we can get.
We are adamant that the climate of economic opportunity for people who are made redundant and who lose their jobs in the coal industry, and for the communities in which they live, will be bleaker if British Coal Enterprise does not exist. It is not the ideal answer, and it is not the only answer, but it is one which we have and one that we do not wish to lose.
I am sure that there are Conservative Members whose constituencies have benefited, albeit in small measure, from the activities of British Coal Enterprise. We urge them to come with us into the Lobby and support new clause 5.

Mr. John Evans: As a Member of Parliament who represents an ex-coal mining area, I strongly support the new clause, which calls for a strengthened British Coal Enterprise, properly funded to assist the regeneration of the ex-coalfield areas. I echo the closing remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and expect—nay, demand—that the Government will also support the principles outlined in new clause 5.
The Government's policy has closed 33 pits since October 1992. There was no rationale for the closure of those collieries—there was no economic rationale and no energy case was made out. 'The closure of those collieries,

as events will prove, was not in Britain's national interest. However, we have made those arguments and we are not here to rehearse them tonight. I do not think that anyone will disagree with my belief that the closure of those coal mines was devastating to the miners' interests.
Parkside colliery, in my constituency, closed in October 1992. The average age of miners in that colliery was 37 and the average pay at Parkside colliery was £249 a week, More than 800 miners were employed in the colliery and probably about 500 related jobs disappeared when the colliery stopped production. The loss of earnings of those miners and the impact on them and their families—most were young men with young families—has been devastating.
The Coalfield Communities Campaign has just conducted a survey into what has happened to those miners in the 17 or 18 months since Parkside colliery closed. One might have assumed that the Government would be interested in what happened to those men and would have conducted such a survey. However, in the absence of interest from the Government, the CCC has conducted it. The saddest and most important feature of its report is that some 45 per cent. of the miners who were sacked at Parkside colliery are still unemployed and their chance of finding work in the St. Helens area has virtually disappeared.
In the past few months, more than 700 people have lost their jobs in the continuing rundown of Pilkington, the largest private employer in St. Helens. A fortnight ago, Beechams announced that 580 jobs would be lost with the closure of its factory, which had stood in the centre of St. Helens for 100 years. So the unemployed miners have little chance of finding a job in the future.
Even more devastating is the study of what has happened to the 44 per cent. of miners who have found jobs. Only one has found a job in the mining industry. He is now a contract worker in a pit in another area. When one examines the earnings of those who have found employment since they left Parkside colliery, one realises precisely what has happened to those men. The vast majority now earn between £100 and £200 a week, with an average drop in earnings of £72 a week. They were not very highly paid in the past, but they are now very low paid. There is now little demand in this country for men with mining skills. No doubt the electricians, fitters and colliery craftsmen have a better chance of getting a job because they have excellent skills, but unless miners find work in another colliery—a remote chance indeed—they have little chance of finding other than low-paid work, which some have managed to pick up.
That is a criminal waste of the skills and talent of the men who worked at Parkside colliery. It shows that impoverishment and long-term unemployment are worsening the lot of the people of St. Helens. They feel threatened by what is happening in their society. Last Saturday, well over 500 people marched through the centre of St. Helens to protest about the Beechams closure. They were joined by Pilkington workers and ex-miners from Parkside colliery.
We desperately need a properly funded programme of investment in the skills and the people of St. Helens and the north-west. We need great emphasis on retraining the men who lost their jobs at Parkside, which is why we need a British Coal Enterprise as outlined in the new clause. The



people of areas such as St. Helens are entitled to something of that nature. They are proud people and they are not begging, but they want employment.
If Tory Members vote down the new clause, it will show once again their utter cynicism and contempt for the men who worked for so long to produce the coal which Britain needed in the past and which it will need again in the future.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I hope that when the Minister replies, he will not use the dreaded words "job opportunities", which we have heard trotted out by British Coal Enterprise on so many occasions. Ministers glibly say, "We have created 1,000 job opportunities in the past four years." I shall tell the Minister what job opportunities mean. If he goes along to a British Coal Enterprise exhibition and looks down the lists of jobs hung up on boards everywhere, he will see those wonderful job opportunities for doubling glazing salesmen working on a commission-only basis in a town 40 miles away.
A redundant miner is expected to sell his house, if he can, in Worksop or Mansfield. Then he ups sticks and goes for job opportunities elsewhere. If ever there was a misnomer it is "job opportunities". British Coal Enterprise ought to be ashamed of itself for using the words continually.
In my constituency, thousands of miners have been thrown on the dole. I have met many of them. They do not have an entrepreneurial background such as might be found in London and some other areas. Some become taxi drivers, and some work in Skegness holiday camps or bingo stalls during the summer. Generally speaking, the training that they need is not provided within the culture that they know. They have worked collectively throughout their lives. They are highly skilled, but are used to being told what to do—starting work at six o'clock in the morning and finished at two in the afternoon, day after day. The assistance that they now need is not available. They may receive advice about loans to set up in business and may borrow at 1 per cent. above the going rate. The statistics and the public relations are very good.
10.30 pm
I have met quite a few people who have tried that, including one I encountered the other week, who had lost £7,000 in starting up as a milkman. A big firm provided him with a round. But people no longer have milk delivered; they buy it in the supermarket. Before he knows where is, a person paying for such a franchise realises that he cannot make the project pay and that his redundancy money has gone down the drain.
People put redundancy money into all sorts of insurance schemes. Door-to-door salesmen invade areas, and the advice that is given is either being ignored or failing to work.
There has been mention of rural areas of Nottinghamshire. In this connection, I think of Worksop, which is in my constituency. In 1970, when the Labour Government were in power, we had what were called grey areas. It was one of the first grey areas in the country. There were 30 per cent. grants for buildings and 40 per cent. grants for new machinery. What is now available with assisted area status? There is merely some tax relief—and

the bureaucracy is such that people who might be encouraged to take over old buildings are actually discouraged.
I do not want to be too parochial, but I can tell the Minister that Warsop vale, which is in my constituency, looks like Bosnia or Beirut. Many of the houses look as if they have been machine-gunned or bombed. Following the pit closure, half the houses look like the back-to-back terrace dwellings depicted in D. H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover".
Houses that have been improved many times are rented out by private enterprise, often to people who cannot get accommodation anywhere else. Occupants do a moonlight flit, leaving rent unpaid. The following day, kids come along and throw bricks through the windows. The day after that, organised gangs move in and strip everything worth taking—sinks, radiators, gas fire, and so on. Out of 200 houses in Warsop vale, 25 are now in such a condition. Nobody can afford to renew them.
As soon as a house becomes empty, the Mansfield council has to erect steel grids over windows and doors. Each of these grids costs £55 a week to rent. The other Saturday night, someone came along with an oxyacetylene device, burned right through the steel on a door and stole the contents of the house.
That is what is happening in mining areas. What occurred in West Virginia when the mines closed is beginning to happen in rural mining areas of this country. What we hear about assisted areas and about British Coal Enterprise is nothing but talk. What is the point in talking about helping someone to set up in business as a window cleaner by providing him with a ladder or a wheel barrow or to open a shop with no future?
More than that is needed. The Department of Trade and Industry must, for example, fund the Robin Hood railway line, phase three, which runs from Mansfield to Worksop. That has been promised by the Department of Transport many times. The cost would be £4 million, and the money is available for the regeneration of coalfield areas. That is the sort of investment that is needed. Mansfield, with a population of 70,000, has no railway station. In the end, the local council had to build it and then extend it to Worksop.
These are rural areas, well away from the cities. The mines have been the framework for the whole culture and life style of the people—the colliery institute, the social welfare organisation, the sports field, the brass band. When the industry collapses, the area dies because it is off the beaten track and no one wants to know about it. Some of these places hardly feature on the map.
As far as the Government are concerned, these places can be left to fester and rot. Kids grow up with no hope of anything better than a part-time job if a supermarket opens. It is just not good enough. British Coal Enterprise, for all its boasting of the past three years, has achieved virtually nothing. When it was set up, we likened it, to paraphrase the words of a famous politician of the past, to the silver plate on a coffin. BCE has created the odd job here and there, but neither it, nor assisted area status, has done anything for the coalfield areas.

Mr. A. J. Beith: British Coal Enterprise operates in my constituency, and I endorse in part what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said about the limitations on what it can do. It can do but


little, but we cannot afford to turn it away. We need it, we need assisted area status, and we need everything else we can get.
I wonder whether the Government really appreciate the scale of the problem. When Ellington was closed, more than 1,000 miners and their families were plunged into insecurity, having expected to have jobs for a reasonable number of years. My experience of this and other pit closures over the years has been that the redundancy payments cushion people temporarily, so that the impact of losing work appears more slowly than it does in some other industries. When the impact comes, though, it is desperate.
Neither BCE nor any other agency has found a way of producing the number of jobs necessary for family bread winners, men or women, to sustain their families as they could when the coal industry employed them. British Coal Enterprise has operated in my area following the closures of Shilbottle and Whittle and closures in the Ashington and Blyth areas. The work that it does, which is not much compared with the work done by other local agencies and the Rural Development Commission, is only a small part of what is required. Nothing, short of the development of major new industries, can provide anything like the numbers of new jobs that are needed.
All that is not an argument against BCE investing in small companies and enterprises. Indeed, I have found that it is involved in care homes and in tourist and leisure-based projects. I must confess, however, that I cannot see BCE even beginning to solve the scale of the problems that we face. In other parts of the north-east such as Easington, Westow and Wearmouth, where male unemployment runs at between 25 and 30 per cent., even the attraction of major new industries—such as Nissan to Sunderland—has not solved the fundamental problems.
We are running as fast as we can just to stand still. A better image might be that of trying to go back the wrong way along one of those moving walkways at Heathrow. I have seen people trying to do that to retrieve forgotten briefcases. That is what trying to cope with the effects of major colliery closures feels like.
I agree with other hon. Members who have spoken of giving as much support as we can to British Coal Enterprise. I support the new clause and should like to see it incorporated in the Bill. The Minister must realise, however, that BCE represents only a tiny part of what needs to be done, both to ensure that some pits reopen and that new industries can be brought to these areas. It is my view—and, I hope, the Minister's—that Ellington must reopen.
However, a succesful reopening at Ellington will not put 1,000 or 1,100 men back to work, because it will not open on that scale. A failure to reopen Ellington will threaten not just the jobs that have already gone, but those in the linked industry of the aluminium smelter in the port of Blyth as well. There is a tremendous amount at stake—far more than British Coal Enterprise can solve or offset. I support whatever efforts can be made to use the British Coal Enterprise as a means of encouraging at least some new jobs in our areas.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: I hope that the Minister will recall that on Second Reading on 18 January I talked about the work of British Coal Enterprise. I said then, and it i.s still true today, that the Bill is silent on the future of BCE. The new clause will, we hope, put that to rights.
It is a great pity, because the work of BCE is not finished by a long chalk. It is arguable that its help for the coalfield districts is needed even more now than in the past, with the mass pit closure programme on which the Government have embarked. In the past, there has been some wariness of BCE—we heard about that in a couple of the contributions to the debate. Those hon. Members' experience of BCE has been negative; mine has not always been as negative. I have questioned the figures that have been put out on job creation, but I believe that they have had more to do with the Government's ego than anything else. The sad fact is that there have been mass pit closures and there is urgent need for regeneration—BCE has a role to play in that.
BCE has an area base in my constituency located on the site of the ex-Carcroft workshops. I know from personal contact and involvement that Bob Iceton and his team have played, and continue to play, an invaluable role in assisting to place redundant miners in employment and provide help for others on training courses. Contrary to some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), training courses have been useful to many people.
BCE has helped with the provision of work space for new small businesses and of small loans at favourable interest rates. It insists on a strict business plan before it allows its funding—public funding—to be used. It is hoped that that will prevent new small businesses from collapsing in a short time. Those wanting to set up new businesses must have a strict business plan to obtain the loans. I know that some people do not find that policy helpful at the time, but it is the right policy in the long term. I hope that such work can continue long after privatisation.
BCE plays a part in a much wider field by being involved with the local training and enterprise council, the local authority in my region and the Rural Development Commission and others in attracting new development and regeneration into my region. It is imperative that its activities are not wound up or reduced. Privatisation should not provide an excuse to discontinue an extra source of funding for the coalfield districts. The Minister should give a firm and long-term commitment to BCE, not pull the helpful rug from under the feet of devastated coalfield regions. The Government could and should support new clause 5.

Mr. Rowlands: Like those of other hon. Members who have spoken, the communities in my constituency depend on at least one of the lifelines for coal communities. They are suffering and trying to pick up the pieces after pit closures. In the case of the Merthyr and Taff valleys, in the past five years, all four remaining pits have been closed.
I thought that I would be the Member of Parliament who represented the last four working pits in south Wales. I had Merthyr Vale, one of the best steam coal pits in south Wales, and deep navigation Treharris, Trelewis and Taff Merthyr were breaking production records. It became a sick joke. Miners knew that, if they broke production records, the pit would be threatened with closure soon afterwards.
10.45 pm
Four pits have closed in five years, and, contrary to the myths perpetrated by two successive Secretaries of State for Wales, Messrs Walker and Hunt, the valleys initiative did not respond to the challenge of those pit closures. That


is clearly demonstrated by the statistics and figures emerging from the 1991 census and the census of employment.
In a proud industrial borough with the great heritage that the name Merthyr Tydfil represents, there are only 8,000 men in full-time work—only 8,000 men in a community of the size and character of Merthyr Tydfil. In 1981, 13,000 men were in employment, and in the 1950s and 1960s there were 21,000 men employed. Today's figures are of 1930s proportions; that is the nature and character of the consequences of the pit closures and the collapse of the alternative post-war manufacturing base as those companies have also contracted and closed.
We are now a community in desperate need at all levels, in all possible ways. In addition to the fact that a mere 8,000 men are in work in a borough of our size, 40 per cent. of men of working age—those aged between 16 and 64—are economically inactive. Those, too, are figures and percentages of 1930s proportions.
Of course, society is different. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned the redundancy money and occupational pension schemes that have built up as a result of regular employment since the war. The only period in the history of our community when there was full-time work has cushioned the worst effects of the collapse of the coal industry and jobs for men in my area.
The second reason why we need such a clause and a refinanced and reinvigorated British Coal enterprise is the other context in which Government policies are working—the supposed lifelines for coalfield communities suffering from closures.
First, we had RECHAR—our great hope from Europe. If it were not so serious and sad, the story of RECHAR 1 would be a farce of Whitehall proportions. The scheme was launched in 1991 by the Commission. Then Ministers spent two years wrangling with commissioners while communities such as Merthyr Vale, Aberfan, Treharris and deep navigation Treharris waited in hope for development.
In December 1993, two years later, a £25,000 grant was made into our community 15 days before the RECHAR 1 programme closed. That was one of the alternative lifelines—it is no wonder we seek to place a statutory duty to incorporate a refinanced and reinvigorated British Coal Enterprise into the Bill.
I now turn to the coal aid package. I do not know how things have worked out in England.

Mr. John Evans: A joke.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend says that it is a joke. I cannot comment on the English scene.
In Wales, we are having great difficulty identifying coal aid package money. I understand, although I am sure my hon. Friends will disabuse me, that in England at least the package was separately put aside and was part and parcel of a specific initiative, so that at least one could ensure that the money was delivered into the coalfield communities. In our case, it is rolled up into general Welsh Office expenditure, and it has been almost impossible to identify what is new money, what is additional money and what is extra support.
Like RECHAR 1, the coal aid package of 1992 did not give one additional penny to British Coal Enterprise activities in my constituency. The Minister has given a long list of expenditures supposedly included in the coal

aid package. Even if we accept that, however, the fact remains that the Welsh Office has cut the mainstream urban development and regeneration programmes in my area. There has been a 25 per cent. cut in Cynon Valley, next to my constituency, which was affected by the pit closures; a 12 per cent. cut in the Merthyr borough programme; a 7 per cent. cut in Rhymney; and an average cut of 17 per cent. in the mainstream urban programmes. It is no wonder that communities like mine, which have been affected by pit closures, feel cynical, disappointed and let down by the so-called lifelines.
For a variety of reasons, a pit in Merthyr Vale and Aberfan that was closed in 1989 is now a cleared rubble site in the heart of the village. There is an identical site at Treharris—enormous, in proportion to the size of the village—as a result of the closure of the deep navigation pit; nothing is happening there. Last year, a pit closed at Taff Merthyr, and the buildings still stand on the site. We do not want it to be cleared: we hope that a revitalised and regenerated British Coal Enterprise will refurbish the control room at Trelewis drift, which—with all its equipment and potential—might offer new workshop and skill-training opportunities.
Our communities need immediate help. I do not deny that money has been spent in Merthyr borough, and a great deal of land reclamation work is going on: we have one of the largest schemes. I am not saying that it is all doom and gloom, but I am saying that the instruments and techniques used in handling the immediate, large-scale and significant problems caused by the closure of four pits in five years have fallen far short of need, demand and expectation.
I strongly support the idea of a rejuvenated, revitalised, refinanced British Coal Enterprise. I, too, feel disappointed; my expectations of BCE have been somewhat dashed. Nevertheless, it has performed an invaluable task in providing job counselling and training schemes. We want it to have a higher profile in the communities of Merthyr Vale, Aberfan, Treharris and, now, Bedlinog—throughout my constituency. A statutory commitment of the kind we seek in the new clause would help to regenerate and give hope to the communities that I represent.

Ms Walley: I shall be brief; time is short, and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
Friends of mine say that British Coal Enterprise has not done as much as it could have, and I think that it could have done more to rejuvenate areas such as mine.
I will tell the Minister something in the context of the many pit closures. When I was at primary school, we heard about the north Staffordshire coalfield in geography lessons. Wherever I went outside school—shopping, for instance—I could see the coalfield, where my relatives worked: it was there, and it was functioning. Many slag heaps resulted from its operations, and there has been a great deal of land reclamation in our area.
The derelict land grant provided money to help with the reclamation of former coal-mining sites. Following the latest spate of pit closures, a huge number of people have been put on the dole. I believe that we should deal with that situation in the same way.
It is crucial that the men who worked in the pits in north Staffordshire now have the opportunity to retrain, acquire new skills and set up new businesses. If British Coal Enterprise does not succeed and does not have a part to play, and if it is not properly funded by Government, we shall be dealing with far more waste and dereliction than


we have done previously. It is crucial that BCE should have a future. My hon. Friends have said exactly the same thing. We need to have a vision of the jobs that must be created in line with sustainable development. BCE, along with everyone else, has a part to play in that, and I hope that the Minister will take on board the many points that have been raised, especially those relating to north Staffordshire and the former north Staffordshire coalfield.

Mr. Skinner: I hope that the Minister is not going to say that he expects British Coal Enterprise to introduce another package of measures, because you can bet your bottom dollar that when Ministers start talking about introducing a package of measures it means that they are short of words. In the past two years, every Minister has told us about packages of measures, level playing fields and God knows what else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and I met a representative of BCE about seven or eight years ago. We were worried about the fact that the previous Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, had told us at Question Time that BCE had created 18,000 job opportunities. We got a fellow from BCE down to talk to a group of east midlands Members of Parliament and asked him where the actual jobs were, never mind the job opportunities. We asked whether they were in my hon. Friend's constituency because none had been found there, and there were none in Bolsover.
Having listened to seven or eight Labour Members, the man said that as a matter of fact most of the jobs had been created in Yorkshire. Up piped Allen McKay, whom I had dragged in as a bit of an outsider, and said that he was from Yorkshire. The man said that he had thought that he was talking to east midlands Labour Members, but we had brought in Allen McKay just in case, so the man declared that no jobs had been created in Yorkshire either. We were then told that most of them had been created in Scotland, but we had not been smart enough to have someone from Scotland with us. That is the background. It was about seven or eight years ago, and my hon. Friend can verify exactly what happened.
At any given pit, 700 or 800 people are working in a hole in the ground. To find new work for that number of people means finding 20 or more acres of industrial land because the warehouses on industrial development estates need a great deal of land.
BCE has been a charade. It was set up after the strike to give the impression that the Government were concerned about all the new jobs that would be necessary as a result of the coal review. It has been a confidence trick from beginning to end. The people whom we met had posh designer suits. They were using money from BCE. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw remembers this, but I recall him remarking that they wore Italian shoes and worked in offices where the carpets were thicker than those in the House of Commons. That is where a lot of the money went—let us talk straight. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) wants a word.

Mr. Etherington: Is my hon. Friend aware that research carried out by Frank Ennis at Durham university revealed that it was not uncommon for six different agencies to claim that they had created the same job? In other words, if' the statistics said that five or six jobs had been created, the true figure was one.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We asked the fellow from BCE whether he was aware that the development agencies were also claiming credit for the jobs that BCE claimed to have created. Local councils were also claiming them, but the net result was that the people at BCE had done nothing but look after themselves. BCE had very good figures—there are many such jobs knocking around.
We all know that the mining areas are facing a calamity. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred to the significant figure of just 8,000 people in his constituency who work, although it is an average-sized constituency and a large borough in Wales. My hon. Friend referred to some of the villages in his area where the pits have been shut one after another—five or six in some 12 to 18 months. The same is true in Yorkshire and in Derbyshire, where there are no pits left open apart from one which is now combined with a Yorkshire pit.
11 pm
There are large areas in every coalfield community where more than 50 per cent. of males are unemployed. Not too many women work either. They have to work in some of the textile factories in Mansfield and parts of Nottinghamshire. That is the picture, and British Coal Enterprise Ltd. cannot resolve it. A massive public works programme is needed if we are to save the social fabric of communities in which crime on the scale in the cities was unknown. We never experienced it. Only a few years ago, people still used to leave their doors open at night. Countless people on every street used to walk into one another's houses, but now the social fabric is breaking down in those rural areas and it is alarming every one of us. In our surgeries and at other times, we hear of crimes that we would never have associated with pit villages. The Government are totally uncaring and have decided to put the boot in. It is all about revenge. The net result is that the social fabric is breaking down.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to Ellington and 1,100 people who are affected there. That pit may be saved under some sort of arrangement, but I doubt it. Without jobs for 1,100 people in that small community, most of whom live in a radius of about 10 miles, the place is ready to explode. Every one of us talks about it, but some of us even bite our tongues because we do not want to say everything about all the implications. That is how dangerous it is. Action had to be taken in the 1930s in America and we are yearning for the same sort of plan. That is one of the reasons why the Tory Government cannot survive. They have gone too far down this road and can only come up with tin-pot privatisation. What does that mean set against a background of social decay? Countless young men and women are without jobs. Many young men who used to go on the Coal Board training schemes—thousands at a time in Yorkshire, Derbyshire and south Wales—now go straight on to the dole. If they do not take places on other training schemes, their money is stopped and they begin to drift to London and elsewhere. That is the picture of the modern pit village, which 10 years ago none of us would have believed could have happened.
Admittedly, there were pit closures before, but most of us were transferred to other pits. Even if some people were made redundant, it did not have the same impact in every pit village. I was speaking to some people in Langwith in
my constituency, where people know everybody who lives in the village, and I asked them what they reckoned was the rate of unemployment. In some of the areas, more than 60 per cent. of the people are without a job and have no hope of finding a job. How can BCE resolve that problem? It is only tinkering.
Instead of talking about BCE, the Government ought to be telling every local authority that there is to be a massive house-building programme. Work will begin to be created, but even that will not resolve the whole problem. A new infrastructure must be built throughout the country, especially in areas where there is massive unemployment. The country is yearning for that. Unemployment in the coalfields has occurred on a scale that none of us could have visualised.
The amendment may suit the purpose of raising the general issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was right to introduce it based on that realism, but we all know that the problem goes beyond British Coal Enterprise Ltd. and beyond all those little agencies that have been set up. We are now facing the need for a total transformation, to create work, and to establish shorter working hours and shorter working years for everybody so that the kids who are leaving school will have jobs.
Whatever can the teachers try to do? How can they deal with young kids with brothers and sisters who have never had a job over four or five years? Do they say, "If you pass your exams you can better yourselves?" How can teachers provide the motivation? That is the background to what is happening in the pit villages, and it can be mirrored in other towns and cities where the industrial base has been smashed by this lousy, rotten Government. That is the problem that we face, and the chances are that it will be a Labour Government who will have to start cleaning up the mess.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will recall that in the 1960s he and I were part of a structure of local government and we campaigned because we were worried about the economic situation in our areas. We were worried even then, and now the picture is one of deindustrialisation and social devastation, with all the dangers that my hon. Friend has, quite properly, identified.
Unlike what has happened in my hon. Friend's constituency, in my area a few jobs have been created by British Coal Enterprise. They are welcome, but they are only small in number, and we need more. As my hon. Friends have already said, BCE alone cannot solve the problem.
When I became a Member of the House in 1970, I had 12 collieries in my constituency, and the National Coal Board was short of skilled workers. There were then 16,000 more steel workers in my constituency and in the constituency of Rotherham than there are now. We have broken world records regularly since then, yet that industry, too, is in peril.
I recently examined the detailed figures from a good school in my constituency that I know well, and only four of its young people had obtained jobs. That fact was not regarded as sufficiently dramatic to command even a word or two of attention in most of the local media. I met a group of 15-year-olds from that area just before Christmas—the Minister should meet ordinary 15 and 16-year-olds who will not get many GCSEs, will not get a job, and see no

prospect of work. British Coal Enterprise is helpful; every job that we can get is needed because it might help to stem the social problems that we have identified.
Allow me to make one partisan point. Last week the Conservative candidate for the Rotherham by-election was selected, and his message to enliven local political debate was that Rotherham should stop feeling sorry for itself and vote Conservative for employment. [Laughter.] We have seen how much employment has resulted from 15 years of Conservative rule. We have seen the death of hope, the removal of light from young people's eyes and the devastation of decent communities where people valued work and family values mattered. If the Government were really concerned about basic values, they would do something to restore some prospect of economic fortune to areas such as mine.
The leader of British Coal Enterprise is Philip Andrew. I know him fairly well, and I respect him. If someone has to lead that organisation, he is as good as anyone. I am not too happy about some members of his board, but I shall leave that subject for another debate. I hope that Mr. Andrew will be given the resources to enable BCE to make the contribution that we need. If we do not get such contributions from it and from the other agencies and organisations that may help, the prospects for our important parts of England—and of Scotland and Wales, too—are bleak indeed.

Mr. Redmond: I shall explain how Government policies need to be altered to make any difference to the unemployment figures in my area. There is ample evidence that what I shall say is true for other areas, too.
Some years ago Independent Television used to give out a list of job gains and losses. It was always manufacturing jobs that disappeared, and the gains were always in the retail trade—jobs in shops, and so on. That is valid in the sense that we are trying to create small industries where there used to be one large industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) mentioned Carcroft. That was an old stamping ground of mine for a number of years. There were about 500 employees on that site, but there is nowhere near that number now. I pay credit to Philip Andrew, who is one of the few shining lights on the coal board, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). There is a right set of dumplings on the coal board. I must ask who appointed them. When we look at who has been appointed, we find one dumpling after another.
It is a tragedy that jobs need to be created, yet Rossington pit, which employed about 1,000 men in the good old days, has reduced to 500 men, and Budge, which is to take out a licence, talks about 200 or 250 jobs in the future. That is not the case now; there are about only 80 members on the site. It is all well and good to talk about tomorrow, but what needs to take place today will create an affluent tomorrow.
Obviously, we desperately need investment. British Coal Enterprise will not have the cash to make that investment unless the Government go into it in a big way. Regrettably, the Treasury will stop the Government from doing that. I ask the Minister to say a little about RECHAR because it is connected to British Coal Enterprise. Unless the Treasury gives some sign that RECHAR money is additional money and not Treasury money, obviously we will not create manufacturing jobs.
I hope that the Minister will accept our modest amendment so that we can start to create the jobs that will remain in being for a long time. One of the problems is that the Minister will not do that unless he acts positively towards manufacturing. Regrettably, since 1979, Governments have not acted positively towards the country's manufacturing base.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The coalfield communities need an agency, perhaps one like British Coal Enterprise but certainly one that is properly and adequately funded and which recognises the scale of the problems that the coalfield communities face.
New clause 5 seeks to address the problem, albeit in a limited way; the problem is enormous for any hon. Member who represents a coalfield constituency. All too recently, I was selected to fight the Warwickshire, North seat. At that time, there were four pits in the constituency, including Birch Coppice pit, which has closed, Baddesley pit, which has closed, and Keresley pit, which closed in 1991 with the loss of 1,300 jobs. Although there is a proposal from the private sector to reopen the pit, the expectation is that the reopened private pit may create only 130 jobs, instead of 1,300. Daw Mill pit in my constituency is still open, although it recently lost half its work force in redundancies. The impact of that on the pit villages throughout north Warwickshire has been enormous.
I can remember going into Keresley village in November 1991 after the pit closed. The feeling in the village, particularly among young people, was one of utter hopelessness. What were they to do without jobs? Pit villages have not just been victims of the Government's policies which have resulted in pit closures; in many ways, they have been victims of a series of other policies that have been made worse by the failure, through British Coal Enterprise or otherwise, to provide employment.
11.15 pm
The villages have also suffered from the fact that they have private absentee landlords, who have often bought up large numbers of former British Coal houses. They charge large rents and do not do repairs. Many people who lost their jobs in Keresley were subsequently subjected to rent increases and could not get their repairs done.
In other villages, such as the former site of the Birch Coppice pit, there are now applications for opencast. We shall come to that subject tomorrow, and I will hope to catch your eye then, Madam Deputy Speaker. In coalfield areas, opencast is seen as a great job destroyer. Many miners feel that they lost their jobs because opencast development was allowed on too large a scale, and was often allowed in areas where pits had closed.
As has been stated, there was the false hope that RECHAR money would come. There was, appalling prevarication by Treasury Ministers who were negotiating a deal with the European Community that would have allowed the money to flow in in good time to enable us to cope with some of the problems in the coalfield communities.
The new clause is needed at least to give some semblance of hope to the many miners who lost their jobs when the pits closed, many of whom are still unemployed. In Keresley, 25 per cent. of the work force lost their jobs on one day and many are still unemployed.
Recently, I spoke to a company director from Leeds who thought that British Coal Enterprise could get access

to grants that would enable him to set up a company in Atherstone in my constituency. He had enormous difficulties in securing resources, co-operation and help from various Government agencies. I must exclude from that the Department of Trade and Industry, which provided him with a certain amount of help and encouragement. British Coal Enterprise provided difficulties in terms of bureaucracy and getting the grants and assistance that were available to create jobs.
The new clause is perhaps a small start—a small hope that can be given back to many of the villages that have for too long been devastated by the closure of pits. It is a plea in a sense to help make British Coal Enterprise work, and perhaps to give some of my constituents the opportunity to work, which they very much want.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I had not intended to speak in the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take into account what has been said by Opposition Members. I especially remember a number of speeches that have been made in the House; one that struck a note with me was made by John Nott when he was moving the Loyal Address many years ago. He said that the real poor of the 20th century were those without hope and those words were true.
There are an awful lot of people without hope in our coalfields. In my constituency, my hon. Friend the Minister knows that the Littleton colliery closed without much warning last year. That devastated a local community, and many people there are now bereft of hope.
It is all very well talking about British Coal Enterprise—and obviously one wishes it well—but providing a little training or the opportunity for a temporary job or trying to solve the problem on the spur of the moment is not the proper answer. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a powerful and eloquent speech and I agreed with much of what he said. My hon. Friend the Minister has to accept that British Coal Enterprise—well-motivated as it is and although it is run by a man whose credentials are beyond reproach—must be given the tools to do the job properly. If we are to provide hope in the coalfields and give real jobs to those who have been deprived of them, commitment and investment are needed.
I took an all-party deputation to see my hon. Friend the Minister about Littleton colliery a few weeks ago and my hon. Friend responded in a constructive manner last week. I am grateful for much of what he said, but it was not enough. I hope that when he responds to this brief debate, he will tell us that there is a true appreciation of the devastation that has been caused in many communities and families by the closures that have taken place over the past couple of years. Those closures came about at a speed that no one anticipated; many of them, though not all, might have been inevitable in the long term—a period of 10 or 15 years. I hope that when my hon. Friend responds to the debate he will tell us that the Government appreciate what has been done to communities and individuals in the coalfields of Great Britain in the past few years.

Mr. Eggar: I am acutely conscious of the difficulties that many in the coalfield communities face as a result not only of the closure of the coal mines but of the general restructuring of the whole basis of business and industry in those areas. Most Opposition Members recognise that coal has been only part of the general employment structure. [Interruption.] Indeed, the hon. Member for St. Helens,


North (Mr. Evans), who in his customary courteous way is shouting from a sedentary position, drew attention to the fact that there were other forms of employment in his constituency.

Mr. John Evans: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I was pointing out that his term "restructuring" sounded like a new term for redundancy.

Mr. Eggar: I hope that that made the hon. Gentleman feel better.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was careful in the way in which he moved the new clause. As the speeches from Opposition Members followed one upon another, I fully understood the difficulties that he had and the differing views on the Benches behind him. It is fair to say that, with one or two exceptions, Opposition Members recognise that British Coal Enterprise has made a significant contribution to the regeneration of the coalfield areas. It has done so, of course, with varying degrees of success. Schemes that have worked in one part of the country have not necessarily worked in another, but it is widely accepted that an initiative that started back in the mid-1980s has gone a long way to achieving its original objectives. The fact that the official Opposition feel able to move the new clause is a vindication of the work that BCE has done. I join in the tribute that Opposition Members have paid to the work of Mr. Andrew.
As for the substance of the new clause, we envisage that BCE should be retained in its current form—in other words funded as at present. It is fair to say that BCE does not argue that it is short of funds. It is fully funded for its programme of work at least into the near future. We intend that BCE should be retained for the present and for the immediate post-privatisation period.
Of course, we need to consider very carefully what will happen to BCE beyond that period. We have asked British Coal for its thoughts about BCE's future and we have recently received its views. I do not want to reach any conclusions before we have had a chance to consider all the options—and the new clause restricts the available options. But I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and all hon. Members who have spoken that when we come to make up our minds about the matter I will take careful account of the words that have been spoken in the Chamber tonight.

Mr. O'Neill: In tonight's debate, representatives of virtually every area of the United Kingdom coalfields have had the opportunity to express their contempt for this Government's feeble efforts in trying to repair the damage that colliery closures have wreaked upon those communities. The Minister's response was as we expected it to be. We will not press the new clause to a vote. Even if we got what we wanted, we do not think that it would make the kind of difference to our communities that is needed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

DUTIES OF THE AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO LICENSING

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 2, line 25, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'England, Scotland and Wales'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 51, in page 2, line 27, at end insert
'and to make arrangements to co-ordinate the separate management for the coal industry in England. Scotland and Wales'.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The amendments are intended to explore one issue: whether the Government have a commitment to ensuring that a mechanism is in place to guarantee a future, no matter how small, for the coal industry in Scotland and Wales, as well as in England. The way in which the Government are proposing to privatise the coal industry—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many private conversations going on. It is very discourteous to the Member who has the Floor.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government are proposing to privatise the coal industry by passing everything to a Coal Authority, which will then license operation, but with five sales in five parts of the country. As the Minister will know, in that context the remaining British Coal pit in Wales is obviously grouped with pits in England, and there is only one remaining Scottish pit, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will speak in a moment.
The amendments seek simply to put on record the fact that if the interests of Scotland and Wales are to be looked after equally, there needs to be not only a recognition that there are three countries with three economies and three interests in the future of the coal industry, but a recognition that the management and administration of decisions also needs to reflect local communities in the three countries.
It is bad enough that people in Wales and Scotland are seeing the coal industry run down partly, if not preponderantly, by policies and decisions of a Government based in Westminster. It will be even worse if they see the new structure come into operation, with no opportunity for Scotland or Wales to influence it at all.
I hope that at the end of this short debate the Minister will be able to tell us that there will be a recognition of the desirability and viability of keeping underground mining going—not opencast mining—in Scotland and Wales. There has been little sign in the past two years of the Government's commitment to keep the coal industry going, as has been evidenced in nearly every debate.
I hope that the Minister will say that the Government are prepared to consider the structures of the management of the authority and the industry in the future, to ensure that the case for Wales and the case for Scotland are made and made clearly, and that areas of some of the greatest unemployment in the country and the greatest traditional dependency on the coal industry are not neglected and carved up almost by accident or by default.

Mr. James Wallace: I do not wish to detain the House too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is nice to say something popular. I do not wish to detain the House, not least when Members such as the hon. Members for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) and for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) are present; they have first-hand constituency knowledge of the Scottish coalfield—far greater than mine.
I recall that when the hon. Member for Midlothian was still a senior National Union of Mineworkers official in Scotland and I visited him in his office, the Scottish coalfield boasted a considerable number of collieries. The only one that remains open and within the responsibility of British Coal is Longannet. That shows how the Scottish coalfield has shrunk in a relatively short period, when many people were urging us to have regard for environmental considerations. One of the qualities of Scottish coal has been its low sulphur content, so it was a product with an environmental selling point, yet that important factor did not seem to weigh with the powers that be who 'made the decisions.
Therefore, I endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The purpose of the amendment is to try to find out whether the Government envisage a continuation of the coal industry, not only in England, but in Scotland and in Wales. As the Bill stands, it would be possible for the authority to determine that there was an economically viable coal mining industry in one small part of England only, and that that sufficed for the whole of Great Britain.
Yet even the pits that remain in Scotland and Wales are an important source of employment in the communities that they serve. In addition to the British Coal pits, there is the Monktonhall pit in Scotland and, subject to correction from the hon. Member for Midlothian, I think that it would still be possible for one of the Scottish pits to be rescued if proper investment were put into it. We should be reassured to know that they have not been totally written off. The fact that British Coal recently won an order for the supply of coal to the Kilchenzie and Longannet power stations is something of a filler, but that, of its nature, is a contract of short term or limited term duration.
When the Government privatised the steel industry, they did not provide for a Scottish dimension, as a result of which the Scottish steel industry suffered grievously in later years. We wish to know whether, following the privatisation of coal, the Government will continue their commitment to the coal industry, however small it is compared with its size in its greater days.

Mr. McLoughlin: Amendment No. 52 would require the authority—I think that is important to remember that it will be the authority—to make separate arrangements for managing the industry in England, Scotland and Wales. The amendment misunderstands the role of the authority. It does not have the responsibility for managing the coal industry. The Government's objective is to facilitate the development of the largest economic industry in the Longer term. Privatisation will stimulate commercial enterprise, release management talents and initiate an industry free from political and financial interference, which have had major distorting effects.
We are looking to the licensees to develop a viable industry that is economically capable of standing on its own feet and can compete with other energy resources.
If the thrust of the amendment is that Scotland, Wales and England should have an opportunity to develop their own coal mining industries, I agree with it. My right hon. Friend announced in September that British Coal would be offered for sale in five regional packages based on Scotland, Wales, the north-east and the central coalfield, which will be offered in two separate parts. There will, therefore, be every opportunity to develop separate regional businesses in Scotland, Wales and different parts of England, if that is how the industry can best develop.
The private sector will determine how, and on what regional basis, the industry is to be managed. That is how it should be, so I hope that the House will reject the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The House has shown that it wants to proceed quickly through the rest of today's business. I have heard what the Minister has said about his commitment to the industry in Wales and Scotland.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he believes anything.

Mr. Hughes: I remain to be convinced, but I shall take the Minister at his word tonight. Together with my hon. Friends from Wales and Scotland, I shall seek to pursue this debate and get some guarantees from him. It is no good just leaving matters to the marketplace without a commitment to the coal industry in Wales and Scotland.

Mr. Hanson: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes his point, will he assure me, as I represent the only pit left in north Wales, that before the Coal Authority is established that pit has a viable future? We are discussing the establishment of the Coal Authority. Before it is established, opportunities to close pits still exist.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman rightly speaks for Point of Ayr, which still wants a future. Other pits in south Wales believe that they should have a future, such as Betwys and Taff Merthyr.
The Minister has said that the Government want a coal industry in Wales. Before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament, I shall be happy if hon. Friends who represent relevant constituencies in Scotland and Wales put more pressure on the Government so that the commitments sought in the amendment are secured. It is not good enough to say that we can allow the pits to die, then set up the authority. It will be too late. We shall test the Minister, but, for tonight, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

DUTIES OF THE AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 35, after 'disposal', insert
', except where the land or property is capable of beneficial use in accordance with the local development plan in which cases the land or property shall be transferred to governmental development agencies.'.
This point is important but simple, so I can be brief. Until British Coal is dissolved and the Coal Authority comes into being, it is required to dispose of surplus land



on "the best terms". That phrase is not defined in the Bill, but it would be reasonable to assume that it means on the best financial return.
Such a criterion is reasonable in many instances, but gives rise to concern when it is applied to the sale of land and sites that have clear potential for development and job creation for the benefit of local communities. That would be the case when their location is favourable for development. It is therefore important that the establishment of alternative uses is carried out as quickly as possible in areas where coal mining activity has been run down.
Economic revival must be the principal aim of Government development agencies—the Welsh Development Agency is a perfect example—but it is not within the remit of British Coal or the new Coal Authority as presently constituted. Transfer of developable sites to those bodies would ensure their most efficient and effective return to beneficial use and avoid perpetuating the failures of the current disposal mechanisms. To leave the Bill referring simply to "the best terms" would, I believe, perpetuate that unfortunate situation. Sites can lie derelict for many years while British Coal wrangles and argues with developers and planners in its attempt to maximise financial return. We have an example of this in my county of Nottinghamshire. I refer to the Babbington colliery—a prime site which is next to a motorway junction and has been a derelict eyesore for the past eight years.
My amendment would avoid such a situation, and I commend it to the House and to the Minister.

Mr. Tipping: We should always remember that, after the Church of England, British Coal is the biggest property owner in this country. We must ensure that the property is put to good use. Coalfield communities want new investment, new jobs and a new future. The way to provide those things is to concentrate on infrastructure, infrastructure and infrastructure. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that British Coal's property can be developed for the creation of new jobs. And new jobs are badly needed if coalfield communities in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere are to be given a fair chance and a fair start.
The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) talked, quite rightly, about the Babbington colliery, which is a prime site close to a motorway. It could be used for the creation of many hundreds of jobs, yet it has stood empty for eight years because British Coal and its partners wish to take whatever profit they can out of it.
The amendment is about cutting the red tape and ensuring that the large property owner, British Coal, gives back to coalfield communities some of the many benefits that it derived from them over many years. We want new investment, new jobs and a new future for coalfield communities—things which can be secured through the amendment.

Mrs. Peacock: I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) has said. Of course we recognise that British Coal is required to dispose of land on the best possible terms, but that may not always mean the best possible money in the short term. I emphasise that it should mean what is best in the longer term for communities that will rely, for jobs, on the land

when it has been disposed of. Short-term cash is not always best. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind as the Bill proceeds.

Mr. O'Neill: This debate comes hard on the heels of the debate on British Coal Enterprise. We know the nature of the problems with which we are confronted. We realise that one of the major obstacles to industrial development, apart from the absence of financial assistance, is the non-availability of property and sites when and where they are needed. As has been said already, British Coal is one of the biggest landowners in the United Kingdom. The disposal of its assets is one of the prizes that those who seek to take it over will wish to seize. We believe that these assets should be made available to public agencies so that they may be put to use as quickly as possible.
Yesterday's men at Hobart house have failed in their property dealings. If structural improvements of the kind that we want are to be secured, an amendment of this nature must provide a means of creating jobs on new sites as quickly as possible. As the amendment enjoys all-party support and has local government backing, it is one of the best ways of achieving what is needed. I therefore urge Conservative Members to join my hon. Friends in the Lobby at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Ashton: Subsidence has not yet been mentioned. The land around a mine may look perfect for development, but the first thing any developer will want to know will always be: has there been any subsidence in the area, no matter how long ago? If there has been any, that is often enough to put an interested developer off for good. Subsidence—not planning—blight ensues.
11.45 pm
If land has to stand empty for years because developers fear subsidence, it is crazy to leave it alone. It is much better if the council can turn it into a playing field or park, perhaps landscaping a canal or a disused railway line for leisure pursuits. A local need can thus be met even if the Coal Authority cannot sell the land.

Mr. Eggar: The amendment would require the Coal Authority to transfer land and property to general governmental development agencies when the land and property in question are capable of beneficial use in accordance with the local development plan.
The amendment would have some curious effects, however. For instance, if the land has been farmed for several years but is owned by British Coal, it would make no sense to force its disposal to governmental agencies. The amendment is thus seriously flawed.
The Bill is structured to ensure that there is a duty on the Coal Authority to dispose of such of its land and property as is not required, broadly speaking, for coal mining. That new duty will make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to hoard land—a tendency of the past, including in the north-east, which has come in for criticism. Under the Bill, there can be no question of hoarding land. The clear intention is that land and property should be released for beneficial use.
The authority has the power to develop land. It can do so together with the local authority, or with English Estates, or with a private sector operator. There is a great deal of flexibility, and the authority has the power to enter into any form of partnership that seems right. Planning permission—I hope that this will reassure my hon. Friend


—would be needed. Such permission is not readily granted if it does not fit in with the local authority's local development plan. The local authority would therefore have an influence on the use of the land, through the planning process.
In view of these assurances, I trust that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend has given me four separate assurances to meet the concerns that my amendment raised. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 300.

Division No. 177]
[11.49 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cryer, Bob


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ainger, Nick
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dalyell, Tam


Allen, Graham
Darling, Alistair


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davidson, Ian


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Austin-Walker, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry
Dixon, Don


Barron, Kevin
Dobson, Frank


Battle, John
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bayley, Hugh
Dowd, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bell, Stuart
Eagle, Ms Angela


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, Andrew F,
Enright, Derek


Benton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Berry, Dr. Roger
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Betts, Clive
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blair, Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Blunkett, David
Faulds, Andrew


Boateng, Paul
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyes, Roland
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fraser, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Galbraith, Sam


Byers, Stephen
Galloway, George


Caborn, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Canavan, Dennis
Godsiff, Roger


Cann, Jamie
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gordon, Mildred


Clapham, Michael
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Coffey, Ann
Gunnell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hain, Peter


Connarty, Michael
Hall, Mike


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hanson, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hardy, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harvey, Nick


Corston, Ms Jean
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Doug





Heppell, John
Murphy, Paul


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoey, Kate
Olner, William



Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Neill, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hood, Jimmy
Parry, Robert


Hoon, Geoffrey
Patchett, Terry


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pendry, Tom


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pickthall, Colin


Hoyle, Doug
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hutton, John
Prescott, John


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Radice, Giles


Jamieson, David
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rendel, David


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jowell, Tessa
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Ruddock, Joan


Khabra, Piara S.
Salmond, Alex


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Sheerman, Barry


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Short, Clare


Litherland, Robert
Simpson, Alan


Livingstone, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Snape, Peter


McAllion, John
Soley, Clive


McAvoy, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Ian
Spellar, John


McCrea, Rev William
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Macdonald, Calum
Steinberg, Gerry


McFall, John
Stevenson, George


McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


Mackinlay, Andrew
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McLeish, Henry
Straw, Jack


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McWilliam, John
Turner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Vaz, Keith


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mahon, Alice
Wallace, James


Mandelson, Peter
Walley, Joan


Marek, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wareing, Robert N


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Watson, Mike


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Welsh, Andrew


Martlew, Eric
Wicks, Malcolm


Maxton, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Michael, Alun
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wilson, Brian


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Winnick, David


Milburn, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Miller, Andrew
Worthington, Tony


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wray, Jimmy


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wright, Dr Tony


Morgan, Rhodri
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morley, Elliot




Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. John Cummings.


Mudie, George
 


Mullin, Chris







NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dunn, Bob


Aitken, Jonathan
Durant, Sir Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Eggar, Tim


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Elletson, Harold


Amess, David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Ashby, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, Dudley


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bates, Michael
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Fry, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Booth, Hartley
Gallie, Phil


Boswell, Tim
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, Andrew
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa



Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, Sir John


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Nick


Churchill, Mr
Hawksley, Warren


Clappison, James
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hendry, Charles



Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert


Coe, Sebastian
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, Sir James



Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kirkhope, Timothy





Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sackville, Tom


Knox, Sir David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Leigh, Edward
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lidington, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lightbown, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Stern, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marlow, Tony
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Merchant, Piers
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moss, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trend, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walden, George


Norn's, Steve
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Ward, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Watts, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Pawsey, James
Whitney, Ray


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whittingdale, John


Pickles, Eric
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilkinson, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Rathbone, Tim
Wilshire, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Richards, Rod
Wolfson, Mark


Riddick, Graham

Yeo, Tim


Robathan, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn



Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Irvine Patrick and


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Timothy Wood.

Question accordingly negatived

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell]

Bill to be further considered this day

Film Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the oportunity to speak. This is a timely debate—not least in view of the Oscar awards ceremony earlier today, but also in the context of the British film industry itself. I hope tonight to take some of the spotlight away from that ceremony in Hollywood, and to shine it on our own film industry—an industry which is failing to live up to its rich tradition and great potential. That was mentioned by Britain's one Oscar winner, Nick Park, the animator who so deserved his success.
There is currently great interest in the regeneration of our film industry. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage share that interest, and are committed to a positive outlook and the realisation of the industry's full potential.
My hon. Friend will know of the wider interest—throughout the industry—in its regeneration; that was marked last week by the launch of the motion picture, arts, commerce and technology initiative, supported by 300 leading figures throughout the film industry, including many directors and artists of the calibre of Kenneth Branagh, Michael Caine and Sir Anthony Hopkins. The initiative deserves to be considered in detail, and one of my purposes in raising this issue tonight is to invite my hon. Friend the Minister to give it the necessary consideration in order to ascertain what needs to be done to restore the British film industry to its place among the best in the world.
In talking of the best in the world, one thinks of Mr. Steven Spielberg, whose success at the Oscar ceremony was so richly deserved and which will have given so much pleasure to so many different people for many different reasons.
Among those who derive pleasure from his success are many people in my constituency of Hertsmere, which has a very strong connection with Steven Spielberg through the studios at Elstree and Borehamwood, where he has made many pictures in the past and which he holds in high regard. He has said that he would like to make films there again, and everyone in Elstree would be pleased to welcome him back but, sadly, as Steven Spielberg is sweeping all before him at the Oscars, Elstree studios faces an uncertain future and is struggling to survive.
In a sense, the fate of the Elstree studios symbolises the decline of British film making. In its own way, it has been at the forefront of film making since the beginning of the century. In the early years of this century, Elstree earned a reputation as Britain's own Hollywood. The first talking picture made in this country was made there by Alfred Hitchcock. Elstree went on to produce a stream of famous British films such as "The Dambusters" and "Moby Dick".
It later came to be a centre for American film production and, in the previous decade, was the production sae for many Hollywood blockbusters, including films of the calibre and importance of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", "Star Wars" and the Indiana Jones trilogy. It is sad to report that, from those heady times and that level of activity, Elstree studios has declined.
In 1988, Elstree was purchased by Brent Walker. In 1990, the company obtained planning permission for redevelopment of the studio site, which was to include the sale of part of the site for retail purposes. That has subsequently taken place, but on condition that the remainder of the site be used for purposes related to film and television production for 25 years. That agreement also incorporated a performance bond, in the sum of £10 million, and an acceptance by Brent Walker that it would carry out a phased development of the retail aspect alongside redevelopment of the film studios.
The agreement was entered into with Hertsmere borough council, but, unfortunately, although the retail development has come to pass, the development of the film studios has not. In July last year, Brent Walker issued eviction notices to the remaining tenants of the studios, who had been left in a serious plight. In September, the closure of the studios was announced. With all-party support, Hertsmere borough council has responded by launching legal action.
I do not propose to go into the merits of that action, but there is great determination in my constituency to save the studios. That determination extends to Hertsmere borough council, where there is all-party support for saving the studios, and to Borehamwood town council, which is very proud of its film-making heritage. There is also wide public support in the constituency under the "Save our Studios" campaign. The campaign is supported throughout the British film industry, and has attracted the support of many of its leading figures.
The point of my raising the subject of Elstree studios is that, whatever its future in film making and television production, it is linked to the overall health of the British film industry. In the same way in which the decline of Elstree perhaps mirrors the decline of the British film industry, I hope that its regeneration could be matched by a regeneration of our film industry.
From any viewpoint, we must accept that British film making is not living up to its full potential. Investment has declined. In comparison with our European neighbours, we are investing less and producing fewer films. In France, investment in films is increasing, whereas in Britain it is decreasing.
What is more, it seems that we are losing some of the big commercial productions and that, more and more, those British films which are produced are relatively low-budget—many of which could be described more as artistic than commercial. That is not to decry them. Of course, some low-budget films are very good. However, for a successful and healthy film industry, we must produce big-budget British films and also, importantly, we must attract to Britain producers from overseas, especially from America, to use our film infrastructure.
The decline has taken place notwithstanding the great potential, to which I call the attention of the House. There are some outstanding advantages to the potential development of the British film industry. We have a richness of artistic and technical talent. Many of those talented people are having to seek work overseas, including not only directors and artists, but technicians.
Production companies have gone overseas wholesale and found work in Hollywood, yet we have that richness of heritage in Britain. We also have the great advantage of being the only English-speaking member of the European Union. We have a growing cinema market. Cinema admissions have almost doubled since the beginning of the 1980s, and in the past year we saw a further healthy


increase, to 112 million admissions. Over the past decade, we have seen the explosion of the home video market and all the implications that that has for film making. We also have access to the European market and its huge potential for audio-visual productions.
Britain has those huge advantages, and it is up to us as a nation to realise the full potential of our industry. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister are keenly aware of the need to develop that potential. In 1990, there was the famous meeting between Baroness Thatcher and representatives of the film industry, which was followed in 1992 by some help towards the film industry's budget.
Since then, my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have sought to take a positive attitude from any angle towards the film industry. The Department of National Heritage has been widely welcomed throughout the film industry as a positive step forward in itself.
My right hon. Friend has also piloted the National Lottery etc. Bill through the House, which will provide assistance to the film industry through the proceeds of the national lottery, and is also to be welcomed.

Mr. Bob Cryer: That has not yet been decided.

Mr. Clappison: It will be filtered through the Arts Council. I think that clause 24 of that Bill obliges the Arts Council to direct some money from the lottery to the film industry. The hon. Member for Bradford, South has commented on that.
That money is welcome, but when the Bill went through the House, it was accepted that it was not a substitution for core funding. I ask hon. Members to take a much more radical approach. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend are presently engaged in consultations with the film industry, which it has welcomed. The consultations have been extensive, and have considered many points of view.
However, I invite my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend, in the course of those consultations, to consider carefully the initiative put forward in the past week and the strong arguments in its support. There is a powerful and compelling case to consider the fiscal environment for film making, and to compare and contrast it with that of many other countries in the need to encourage investment in film production. Surely there must be a case for encouraging investment by those who benefit from film production. I include in that definition distributors and exhibitors of films, the video film industry, and possibly some branches of the television industry.
I also invite the Minister to examine the case for reconsidering the tax treatment of visiting artists—the withholding tax, which has been described by many people in the industry as a factor which influences the location of productions. I hope that my hon. Friend will also consider the way in which expenses are written off. I know that the Government have considered that subject in the past, but I invite them to do so again, and to consider an initiative.
Today, in view of its famous past, Elstree studios, in my constituency, is in some ways rather a sad place. A great deal of hope and commitment are still attached to the place, and local people regard it fondly. In a way, it stands as a reminder of what failure can mean, and what it has meant in the recent past. But the studios are also a symbol of

hope. I hope that they can have a future as part of a reviving British film industry, and be involved in both film and television productions.
Those may not be on the scale of some of the glories of the past, but the fact that there can be a future for Elstree has been confirmed by studies carried out by Hertsmere council. I hope that my hon. Friend will keep well in mind the need to revive not only Elstree but the film industry throughout the country, which has the potential to be a most important industry and to do an enormous amount of good.

Mr. Cryer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. This is his Adjournment debate, and I congratulate him on having secured it. I entirely agree with most, although not all, of what he has said, and I share his hope that Elstree can become a revived film studio, at a time when the British studios that are still operating have their space fully booked and are doing well. It would be helpful if Elstree could share in that resurgence of the British film industry.

Mr. Clappison: It may not come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman to hear that increasing use has been part of the debate on the future of the studios. That point has certainly been made.
In conclusion, I invite the Minister to adopt a radical approach, to build on the positive outlook that I believe the Government already have towards the film industry, and to be prepared to take the radical steps needed to revive that important industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. fain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on his good fortune in having secured the debate on this important industry, and on his cogent and persuasive speech—delivered without notes, which is always impressive.
The film industry in this country has a long and illustrious tradition and attracts many able and talented people—people who are talented both artistically and commercially. My hon. Friend has referred to the impressive role played by Elstree studios in the long career of the British film industry. His constituents could have no more persistent or hard-working Member of Parliament on the issue; he has raised the subject many times with me in letters, as well as on the Floor of the House.
The Government have received representations inviting us to prevent the closure or change of use of Elstree studios. Although we recognise that Elstree has made an enormous contribution to British film production in the past, the future use of the studios is a matter for the commercial judgment of the owners, subject to any necessary planning consents.
It is not for Government to intervene in the commercial decisions of companies, and we have no plans to do so. Nor is it the role of Government to decide whether particular studios or other businesses should remain in operation. Rather, it is the role of Government to establish an overall framework within which the industry can thrive, and to offer limited financial support to encourage the development of an appropriate infrastructure for the industry.
It is for members of the film industry to provide the ideas, creative talents and entrepreneurial skills needed to make the industry flourish. In short, the Government believe that the film industry, like other industries, will prosper only if it can stand on its own feet without relying on subsidy.
It may be helpful if I describe briefly the various support measures that the Government provide to the industry at present. In the first place, we think that it is right to support training in the industry by contributing £1.85 million annually to the national film and television school. That is less than 50 per cent. of the school's total budget, the remainder being met by the industry. Over time, we expect the industry to take on an increasing proportion of the school's running costs.
Graduates of the school are prepared for careers in the film and television industries. Training courses cover a large range of disciplines, including production, direction, animation and camera work. Graduates of the school have regularly been awarded prestigious industry awards. Government support for the school is intended to ensure that British talent continues to be in demand wherever excellence is required.
Film, of course, is a cultural, as well as a commercial, activity, and we make a substantial grant—£15 million this year rising to £17 million in 1994–95—to the British Film Institute. The institute is responsible for encouraging the understanding and development of moving-image culture in all its forms, covering film, television and video. Among its many functions, it operates a world-class library, the Museum of the Moving Image and the national film and television archive; and it is responsible for the screening at the national film theatre of many films to which the public would otherwise have little or no access.
Looking to the future, a new source of funding for the non-commercial aspects of film will be, as my hon. Friend recognises, the national lottery. Part of the share of lottery proceeds earmarked for the arts will be available for film, but the projects supported must be primarily of benefit to the public, not for private gain.
While the Government have recognised the need to support the cultural aspects of film, we are also aware of the need to encourage particular aspects of the industry. In that context, I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the achievements of British Screen Finance Ltd., the private sector company which the Government have funded since 1986 with an annual grant of £2 million.
In December 1992, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage announced that funding will continue until at least March 1996. British Screen Finance operates three support schemes by loaning money on a commercial basis. Those schemes provide support for low to medium budget productions, short films and script development. Many of those films reflect the British culture and way of life.
An important part of British Screen Finance's remit is to enable new talent to enter the industry, encouraging the development of fresh entrepreneurial and creative talent which would otherwise find it difficult to make a start in film production. Since 1986, British Screen Finance has invested in 85 feature films, most of which would not have been made without Government support.
British Screen Finance is also responsible for administering the European co-production fund. The fund was set up in 1991 with Government support of £5 million

over three years, with the objective of promoting collaboration between producers in the United Kingdom and other European countries.
The fund has supported 11 co-productions to date: seven made with other European Union countries, and four with non-member states. Again, many of them would not have been made without Government support. During 1993, the fund was the subject of an independent evaluation review. Following that review, we announced last December that funding will continue for a further three years.
Continuing with the European theme, I remind the House that, in April 1993, the Government arranged the United Kingdom's accession to "Eurimages", a Council of Europe initiative aimed at developing the European audiovisual industry. "Eurimages" provides financial support for feature-length fiction films, creative documentaries and distribution.
The scheme is proving to be very successful, with approval having already been given to 11 productions involving British participation. The Government also provide financial support for the secretariat of Audio-Visual Eureka, a body with a membership of 33 European countries, which provides help in a variety of ways to audiovisual industry professionals who seek to operate on a European level. An important task of the body has been to establish a European audiovisual observatory, with the purpose of collecting, disseminating and standardising European audiovisual data for the industry. Again, the Government are contributing towards its running costs.
In addition, the Government are contributing £28 million to the five-year MEDIA programme established in 1991. This European Union programme runs 19 projects mainly targeted at developing opportunities for small businesses, offering support for a range of activities relating to the development, marketing and distribution of film, television and video products, and including cinema exhibition, training and new technologies.
I turn now to the world stage. The Government recognise the need to make the United Kingdom an attractive place for foreign film makers. That is why the British Film Commission was set up in 1991, with Government funding of £3.5 million over four years. The objective of the commission is to promote the United Kingdom as a location for the filming of feature firms, television programmes and commercials.
In carrying out that activity, the British Film Commission promotes British personnel and facilities in the film industry and helps to stimulate the development of the technical support structure. In 1992, the film industry earned £182 million from overseas companies which came to the UK to make films. This year, we are already aware of at least four United States films that will be made here.
We should not ignore the export earnings of British films which are screened overseas. Last year, the export earnings of the British film industry were considerable, and £189 million was earned through royalties from the overseas exhibition of British films in foreign cinemas and on foreign television.
It is because of both the cultural and the economic importance of the film industry that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently been reviewing the state of the industry. There is much good news. Last year, there were 67 UK-produced films, with £214 million of investment—a significant increase on the previous year.
Foreign producers continue to invest in the United Kingdom, benefiting from the superb talent and facilities which are available.
The number of cinema screens in the UK increased by almost 400 between 1989 and 1992, with the number of admissions more than doubling over the past decade. Films continue to be one of the most popular forms of entertainment available on television and video. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there are encouraging signs for the film industry.
However, the Government are not complacent about the British film industry, and, well before the launch of the industry's campaign "Impact"—which my hon. Friend mentioned—we were aware that many members of the

industry were concerned at the levels of investment. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State held a round of consultations with all sectors of the film industry to listen to the views of the people who work in the industry.
My right hon. Friend has listened closely and sympathetically to all the proposals put before him during his meetings, and to all the representations that have been made subsequently. He is currently considering what might be done to increase the level of private investment in British film production, and he will make an announcement on his conclusions in due course.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in wishing the British film industry every success in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve midnight.